The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

–G. K. Chesterton

Nearly all Traditional Conservatives are deeply invested in the narrative of men as uncivilized and immoral brutes who need to be tamed by morally superior women. We see this with Glenn Stanton’s delight in the movie As Good As It Gets, and his assertion to parents that their daughters will naturally grow up to be good so long as society doesn’t trip them up. We also see this in Pastor Driscoll’s famous line:

Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.

This narrative is in fact part of the rationale for women’s sacred path to marriage. Once the woman has had sex with a suitable variety of men, the man she hands the man up card to has the duty to marry her not only as a reward to her for having done the work of having sex with many men, but as a duty to himself to submit to her moral superiority so she can make him a better man.

Traditional Conservatives are making two key mistakes to come to this frame of mind. The first is a misunderstanding of why men in a culture which supports traditional marriage behave so differently than men in a culture which discourages it. Civilization was built by men, specifically by beta men who were motivated by the possibility of having and leading a family. Men are willing to work harder and make sacrifices when they either have a family or perceive the possibility of having one. Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.

The second mistake is Trad Cons having forgotten what they were conserving in the first place. As I’ve mentioned before, Trad Cons act much like a drift sock; they aren’t anchored to a fixed position so they simply act as a drag against whatever the current direction of change is.

If Trad Cons were anchored to a fixed position it would be the Bible. The Old Testament is filled with cautionary stories about men who let their wives lead them instead of the other way around, and the New Testament is also clear on this issue. Outside of the Bible, folk tales and Shakespeare teach the opposite of the modern Trad Con narrative, with tales of husbands taming their shrewish wives. However the Bible should either way be the primary anchor when conserving western thought on this issue, and this should be the case whether one is Christian or simply conserving the Judeo-Christian tradition.

According to Dr. Mohler, the problem with pornography in Christian marriage is that it threatens the natural order of things by weakening the wife’s control over her husband (emphasis mine):

The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

He explains that God wants wives to withhold sex in order to control their husbands, and in this way the wife can lead and purify her husband. While a husband’s desire for sex with his wife is physical and therefore shameful, she purifies the act of sex by ensuring that it is more abstract and emotional. He makes this argument by citing from 1 Corinthians 7, which states that neither spouse is to deny sex to the other because it creates temptation for sexual sin (like pornography). He reads this through the lens of Ephesians 5 which states that the husband is to lead his wife and to wash her with the water of the Word, and she is to submit to him. Where Scripture says “up”, Dr. Mohler explains that it secretly means “down”.

While Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that unmarried men are focused on pleasing the Lord and married men tend to fall into the trap of focusing on things of the world (pleasing their wives), Dr. Mohler knows that the opposite is true:

I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband.

Dr. Mohler explains that this occurs through the moral wisdom of a woman’s tingle:

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

This he explains is the fundamental problem with pornography; it weakens the power the wife holds over her husband in the form of withheld sex, interfering with her ability to civilize him. He illustrates this by offering a contrast. First he describes a married man:

The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity, and is living in sexual integrity with his wife. In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.

He contrasts this to the untamed brutes men will naturally become if not lead by a wife:

This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene, or his moral character in the eyes of a wife. Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor, and his physical appearance.

The interesting thing about these posts is the focus on the husband’s obligations not to himself or to the marriage or their children, but to his wife specifically.

“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”

Note the exhortation to the man to prove himself. There is no concomitant exhortation to the wife to prove herself worthy of his commitment and provisioning. Hence the manosphere’s consistent focus on telling men to withhold commitment and money until she shows she’s earned it.

“Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same. While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.”

The implicit argument is that physical pleasure for its own sake is base and perverted, and therefore evil. But what of women’s misuses of sex: for attention, affirmation, validation, status, or power? Christian authors never mention women’s baser behaviors: the tendency toward malice, their occasional vicious cruelty, their ability to rip out a man’s heart with nary a second thought, their ability to act in ruthless self-interest with no regard for others, their ability to walk away from a decades-long relationship and never look back.

If Mr Mohler can first find suitable and pure women, fit for marriage to an upstanding man with potential, then he can begin to talk. If this man is indeed saying that majority of women today are ‘fit’ for marriage and only men are to blame for the current dilemma by blaming our uncouth behaviour and unshaven faces, I would really like to try what he is smoking.

I always laugh over the ‘men = bad, women = good’ philosophy that is banded around as if it were Gospel. There is but one easy to follow instruction for a woman if she wants to remain pure before marriage, and that is, ‘no sex before marriage’. For some reason these women seem unable to follow this one instruction. There are indeed women who do follow this strictly, I take my hat off to them as they are the exception, but the rest of womanhood seems intent to take full advantage of their sexual youth and then hand in the ‘man up and marry’ card as their sexual power starts to wane.

Mr Mohler needs to back up his assertion by showing us worthy and young women who want marriage to a decent man, who can provide for his family; and not the neighbourhood thug. Or is he really expecting men to man up and marry a woman in her thirties, who spent more time on her career and bad boys, who has no idea what it takes to be a wife and who still secretly pines away for the long, lost lover of her youth. I’m sorry, but that’s a recipe for disaster and more divorce.

This unfortunate mindset comes from one George Gilder, who pioneered the male side of gender studies in the 1970s. To be certain, he is to be applauded to attending to men in an era when women were the sole concern of the larger society, but he fell into the trap of attending to the Alpha man’s response to the Sexual Revolution. As David Rockefeller’s adoptive son, he grew up in an Alpha milieu, so perhaps he can be forgiven. Yet he excoriated men for divorcing the wives of their youth and exchanging them for younger, more nubile replacements. GILDER CORRECTLY PREDICTED THAT THIS WOULD LEAD TO DISCONTENT AND DISENGAGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE “LEFT BEHIND” MEN. Give him that much. He saw the corrective of this to be shaming the Alphas into remaining with their aging wives.

What Gilder failed to explain, and it is the fatal flaw of all of his arguments, was why the younger females preferred becoming second wives to being the first wives of the repudiated men. Hypergamy was never named or even guessed at, and certainly not described in such crass and explicit ways as they are at the Chateau or the Spearhead. Women were assumed to desire monogamy and security. Remember, Gilder’s Naked Nomads came out in 1976, only shortly after Roe v. Wade opened the floodgates for the Sexual Revolution, and hypergamy had not yet emerged from its cage snarling and snapping. “Nice guys” could still get laid, and women were not yet encouraged to “hold out for a hero”.

UNFORTUNATELY, Gilder became something of a guru for the Right because of his books on entrepreneurship and his criticism of the Welfare State, and later because of his prediction of the impact oif the Internet on the western commercial milieu. I don’t know how his erroneous teachings on the functioning of the sexual marketplace got adopted so uncritically by Traditional Conservatives, but it did.

“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”

So, essentially wives are God’s earthly proxy agents for men. Wives are the arbiters of the Lord’s pleasure – if a woman is pleased, proud, secure and all-ways satisfied with her husband to the point she ‘rewards’ her good and faithful servant with access to her vagina, then God too must be pleased. Ergo hypergamy IS God’s plan.

Just think of how thoroughly conditioned a society would need to be to have men in positions of religious authority advocate that the feminine imperative IS God’s imperative. Well done feminism! The circle is complete; fear of God is now conflated with the fear of woman’s approval. Feminine rejection IS God’s rejection. To defy the feminine imperative is to defy God, and it’s religious men who’ll advocate the most strongly for it.

He is so wrong, and yet he comes very close to being so right:
“. . . he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.”

When a man has taken The Red Pill, is he not then careful to lead his wife in such a way that her hypergamous instincts increase her sexual desire for him? Amidst all of Dr. Mohler’s wrongness, that one sentence captures an essential Red Pill truth. The average man errs on the side of too much Beta.By increasing his Alpha, he will begin “to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.”

Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.

If they had inserted a feminine woman caring for their family, they may have had it right. This power of withholding sex is not a feminine power. It is a masculine one as it is overt in it’s nature. A woman’s power is in her ability to inspire her husband to want to do more, to become stronger and more dominant not only toward her but toward the whole family. She cannot do this by grabbing for power, which is exactly what withholding sex is. Rather she does this by letting go and embracing her femininity and submissive nature. This vulnerability can inspire men to do great things and it most definitely will inspire a highly protective nature in the men who love them.

“Trad Cons have misunderstood this effect, and instead misattributed productive and civilized behavior among men to an effect of women being present.”

George Gilder fell for that one. Thankfully he self-destructed and is not listened to anymore.

The humorist P.J. O’Rourke made the comment that without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and Camille Paglia, although a lesbian is not a man-hating one, wrote that without men women would still be living in grass huts.

Your riff on Gilder reminded me of another of his half truths. Gilder posited that when left to their own devices, men are prone to roam. They don’t set down roots, don’t get motivated, and don’t civilize themselves. Women are the great civilizers, the reason civilization was created.

According to Gilder’s construct, an individual man when left to himself would never accomplish anything or amount to anything. He only becomes useful when he allows the civilizing influence of a woman into his life. She gives him purpose, adds meaning to his life. She, and she alone, makes him fit for company with others. She is his muse, his reason for being. It is only a woman who can turn a man into a real human being.

And so the tradcons and religious cons adopted the ideology that a man by himself is somehow broken, incomplete, damaged. He cannot fulfill his destiny unless a woman accepts him.

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

This is certainly disgusting. It is, however, a natural consequence of a traditionalist world view that encourages women not to have direct authority or power in society or in their own homes. Women are only people, after all, and have the same basic desires men do to assert themselves. With few tools at their disposal, and with outright discouragement from openly asserting themselves, it’s natural that traditionalist women will start using sex as a “cookie” to dispense or withhold from their husbands as a reward or a punishment, rather than an event to be enjoyed by both husband and wife.

Just think of how thoroughly conditioned a society would need to be to have men in positions of religious authority advocate that the feminine imperative IS God’s imperative. Well done feminism! The circle is complete; fear of God is now conflated with the fear of woman’s approval. Feminine rejection IS God’s rejection. To defy the feminine imperative is to defy God, and it’s religious men who’ll advocate the most strongly for it.

It really is profound the depth of the rot of feminism. Dr. Mohler leads the religious instruction for future Southern Baptist pastors. If you asked the average American Who is fighting feminism and progressivism in Christianity today?, they would answer the Southern Baptists and Focus On the Family. Dr. Mohler and Glenn Stanton are what the leadership of the rear guard looks like.

DH, ‘Lliberated women’ are just as likely to withhold sex as punishment for men not doing what they want. It was ‘liberated women’, after all, who brought the ‘rape in marriage’ argument that leads to women feeling entitled to punish their husbands with no sex.

A women who doesn’t love her husband will use whatever means at her disposal so that she can divorce him and claim cash and prizes. Liberating women further will do nothing to fix that.

Like all half-truths, the idea of the incompleteness of the single man has a grain of truth. Male-female relationships are supposed to reveal a truth about God’s relationship to (directly) His people and (indirectly) to His creation that a man alone cannot reflect. HOWEVER, never is it suggested, either by Gilder or by his lesser acolytes, that the same is true of women. Single women tend to be lionized by the Church in a way that single men, unless they are under vows of celibacy, are not.

The whole Protestant Evangelical magisterium seems to be geared towards teaching young women to be “complete in themselves [with Jesus, I assume]” before attempting “a relationship”. I cannot imagine a more perfect prescription for frustration.

Men and women are supposed to be together, and in complementary distribution. Two men or two women, one biological and one aspirational, cannot complete the metaphorical requirements. Our ancestors understood that, and if it wrought pain on the outliers, it was just assumed that they would suck it up on behalf of the majority.

The last fifty years has seen the emergence of a massive culture-wide obsession with the well-being of the outliers to the detriment of the core.

I really see no reason why you’d want to see a man encumbered by a heavy spousal load to the point where he couldn’t maneuver. Even a married man should be more like a Ferrari 458, Lotus Elise or Ariel Atom in terms of ability to perform. Or if you want to go off-road for true adaptability, go with a Lancia Stratos or a Ford Escort RS 1700T.

DH, ‘Lliberated women’ are just as likely to withhold sex as punishment for men not doing what they want. It was ‘liberated women’, after all, who brought the ‘rape in marriage’ argument that leads to women feeling entitled to punish their husbands with no sex.

Holy cow, Feminist Hater. You think men should be legally permitted to force their wives to have sex against their will???? Why would you even want to do that????

Of course, married women should be able to say “no” to sex they don’t want. This is no greater than the privilege married men enjoy, by the way.

That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.

In saying, “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”, I believe that Dr. Mohler is right. Where I disagree with him is when and how frequently this happens. Provided that there is no divorce, it surely happens once, for all time when the couple marry. This is a decision to be made while the couple are dating, to take effect from the time of the marriage.

I know that there has been a furore about rape comments recently, on both sides of the Atlantic, which included comments by and about a British MP, George Galloway, One of those comments about Mr. Galloway was that “A man does not get a season ticket to have sex with a woman. Each time requires consent.” Outside marriage, that is fair enough, but in a marriage that is a non-starter. If a woman withholds sex from her husband, then that cannot be other than a fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage and should leave the wife open to a charge of abandonment, or in modern no-fault terms, irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by a refusal to participate in the fundamental action that defines a marriage.

In saying, “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”, I believe that Dr. Mohler is right. Where I disagree with him is when and how frequently this happens.

But it’s clearly unbiblical and there’s no question that there are clear instructions in the Bible that he should know and defend. Instead, he turned it completely upside down. If you’re a “leader” and you draw authoriy from Scripture, then you should give sound advice.

Really, this is like saying the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. It’s that backward.

I know that there has been a furore about rape comments recently, on both sides of the Atlantic, which included comments by and about a British MP, George Galloway, One of those comments about Mr. Galloway was that “A man does not get a season ticket to have sex with a woman. Each time requires consent.” Outside marriage, that is fair enough, but in a marriage that is a non-starter. If a woman withholds sex from her husband, then that cannot be other than a fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage and should leave the wife open to a charge of abandonment, or in modern no-fault terms, irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by a refusal to participate in the fundamental action that defines a marriage.

But what are we talking about here? If you want to call refusal to have sex “abandonment” for purposes of divorce, fine. Of course, this will have to go both ways, and men who refuse sex to their wives will have to pay the same penalty.

But how exactly will you define this? Are you really proposing that if a woman is on her way out the door to go to work or is tending a hurt child, she has to drop what she is doing to have sex if her husband demands it? Forcing a woman to have sex whenever her husband wants in essence gives him total control over all her movements, unless you find a way to define some exceptions into your rule.

The other problem is that you are talking about two different things. A husband or wife facing a consequence (such as a charge of abandonment) for withholding sex is one thing. Permitting marital rape — i.e. forced sex against someone’s will — is another thing.

Actually, a fair privilege a man should be afforded is the permission to not talk to his wife or be completely excused from his commitment if his wife won’t put out.

Nice try. First of all, a man absolutely has a right not to talk to his wife, and vice versa. Ever heard of the silent treatment? Men do it all the time, as do women. And if a wife tackles her husband to try to force him to talk to her, she should be charged with a crime.

As for being excused from your commitment if your wife won’t put out, yeah, it’s called “no fault” divorce. You know, that thing you keep complaining about.

I do not believe that most women are financially motivated to divorce by “cash and prizes”. A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. If they divorce she will have at best half. His income would have to support two households instead of one. Where are the cash and prizes from divorce?

Starviolet, in most divorces, the most valuable asset are the children. You can gain hundreds of thousands in tax free income if you divorce a man of average income early enough with only just two children.

“Excused” implies “not penalized”, i.e. not robbed of your property, income, and children. I know you’re going to quibble over the use of “your”, because you’re a disingenuous idiot, but I’m also sure that everyone else will see your cheap little word game for what it is.

She gets to divorce a man she no longer wants to be married to, but gets a continued income stream from him. She gets all the benefits (the money) and none of the burdens (living with him, having sex with him, tolerating him). She gets all the returns and none of the obligations.

Rock throwing peasant – unless the husband is hiding his money or refusing to share a bank account then his wife has access to ALL of it. Not just the child support payments which will be less than his actual income.

I really see no reason why you’d want to see a man encumbered by a heavy spousal load to the point where he couldn’t maneuver. Even a married man should be more like a Ferrari 458, Lotus Elise or Ariel Atom in terms of ability to perform. Or if you want to go off-road for true adaptability, go with a Lancia Stratos or a Ford Escort RS 1700T.

Oh, I totally understand and AGREE wholeheartedly that withholding sex as a punishment, or acting as if you’re doing your spouse a huge favor by having sex is wrong. I definitely believe that both husbands and wives have a moral obligation to make their spouses feel sexuall desired and sexually satisfied.

If you look above, you will see I’m not the one who brought up marital rape in this thread. (See Feminist Hater at 9:16 a.m.).

And, starviolet, rest assured every family law attorney gets all the financial info set during the first meeting. After they pat your hand and tell you all will be okay, they ask for every asset you have so they know just how much they can get from the divorce. Then, they say, “Let’s settle custody first.” Why? Because people will piss away every dime fighting the pointless battle when joint custody is healthiest for families.

The divorce attornies have this practice down. They know who is the unmovable one and they rah-rah that person to spend every dime they can with promises that they can recoup it through child suport (which is never tracked once it is paid, so it can be used for anything).

And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out? Sounds like a greaaat deal. (And then you wonder why feminists fought their way into equal paying jobs.)

Deti- she does not get all of the money she gets some of it. She will be less well off financially than before the divorce. I wonder what kind of man is so burdensome to live with, have sex with and tolerate.

Rape is not the issue. Consistent refusal, without a good reason, is. And, no gender equality is not implicated here. Men have much higher sex drives than women. For an eqivalent action on a husband’s part to his wife’s denial of sex, try consistent refusal to provide any emotional support/tenderness or withdrawal of access to financial resources.

SV:

Get a clue. With a divorce she gets continued acces to his cash but gets rid of him. In marriage, they both have access to the money, yes, but he does have some say in how it is spent. If need be, he can get a separate bank and/or investment account. Sure, legally, she may be able to force access to it, but that is cumbersome. With a divorce, typically, the wife gets the house, everything in it, the kids, the car (or the better car) and money, free, clear and convenient, and no longer has to deal with the husband and his “demands” or “whining” for sex.

Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife.

Not only that but in a traditional marriage, the wife has sacrificed or scaled back on career in order to care for the children. This means she has little or no future earning capacity, especially compared to the man. She is left to try to develop that future earning capacity while several steps behind the curve, or hope some other dude adopts her.

Oh, and not to mention the nightmare of trying to collect from some intransigent guy. I’ve seen cases where the woman absolutely cannot depend on that monthly check and has to drag the guy into court constantly to try to collect. Or in my in-laws’ case, my father-in-law simply stopped working. So relying on divorce to collect cash-and-prizes isn’t exactly a genius plan.

Rock throwing peasant – unless the husband is hiding his money or refusing to share a bank account then his wife has access to ALL of it. Not just the child support payments which will be less than his actual income.

You’re missing the big picture. First, divorce is not a rational move. It’s emotional, just like getting married. So, rational thinking discussing divorce is like using a screwdriver to push a nail it, because when you’re in divorce proceedings, it’s nothing but emotion.

Next, she can get thousands in tax free income. Consider that income as if it was “taxed” and her income went from making $50,000 a year to approx $80,000 a year (again, if is was taxed income and she is bringing in an extra net $20K a year). The husband goes from making $50,000 a year to $25,000 a year and he has to pay taxes on that income he forks over.

Look, let’s be blunt. If there was not a lot of money to be made, there would be less divorce. Divorce attorneys would push for quick settlements, splitting all 50/50, because they couldn’t get money from the family. They don’t look for quick, painless settlements because the system is geared to hammer one and reward the other.

If a wife’s submission is something to be granted just when she feels like it, or when a man has earned it by demonstrating his submission to her demands, it is not submission at all, but dominance.

But an even more important point is that the commandment to the man to love his wife and to the woman to obey her husband is not primarily a duty to each other – these are duties to God. The wife is not the judge of her husband’s love – God is. And her duty to God to obey her husband exists whether or not he fulfills his duty. Likewise, the husband’s duty to love his wife exists whether or not she fulfills her duty. Neither spouse is entitled to the position of judge, for that is God’s alone.

And this is the deepest flaw of Mohler’s perspective, encapsulated in this sentence:

“Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.”

The first clause is true – the husband does owe his wife the confidence, affection and emotional support. The second clause is false – the wife’s freely giving herself to her husband is not contingent on her husband’s behavior, but only on her own.

By encouraging women to be the arbiters of sex by placing them in judgement of their husbands and making their own duties contingent upon that judgement, Christian leaders are encouraging women to usurp God’s role: “and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. This of course is a manifestation of the original sin.

Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.

We’re talking about women purposefully withholding and refusing sex for manipulation or deception or passive-aggression or punishment.

Which is not an uncommon thing in history. While not wholly written in Scripture, there’s an almost age-old interpretation of the Old Testament Law aimed squarely at women (no it’s not hateful patriarchism, I find usually in old laws or commentaries that things aren’t addressed when they aren’t a concern – men don’t willfully withhold sex without just cause) where continued refusal of “the marital duty” over a protracted period without just cause (6 months or a year, can’t remember which right now) constituted a breach of the marriage covenant akin to adultery (but not as serious). There were warnings and such throughout this period, but if the whole period elapsed, the woman was to be sent on her way with nothing but the clothes on her back and her possessions she brought from before the marriage, along with very public notice of who she was and what she did so all the other potential suitors would know what she had done.

It’s a testament to the success of the feminists’ attack on the sanctity of marriage that sexual provision within marriage has gotten to be treated so flippantly compared to before.

He [Dr. Mohler] explains that God wants wives to withhold sex in order to control their husbands, and in this way the wife can lead and purify her husband.

I want to cry wolf.

I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband.

Honestly i would rather for God to be please with me then my wife. God can send me to hell forever. A woman can only make my life hell as long as I’m on earth. I’ll choose pleasing God any day.

“So, essentially wives are God’s earthly proxy agents for men. Wives are the arbiters of the Lord’s pleasure – if a woman is pleased, proud, secure and all-ways satisfied with her husband to the point she ‘rewards’ her good and faithful servant with access to her vagina, then God too must be pleased. Ergo hypergamy IS God’s plan.”

It was when the alpha females were on the monogamy team. They were just as much in charge of the moral sphere then as they are now, and it had nothing to do with feminism. Feminism has become a force driving alpha females to the wrong team, but they were always “empowered”. Mohler was raised in an environment in which the alpha females were entirely onside. He’s oblivious to a world in which they’ve switched teams.

“Just think of how thoroughly conditioned a society would need to be to have men in positions of religious authority advocate that the feminine imperative IS God’s imperative. Well done feminism!”

Heh- it wasn’t feminism that did that, although earlier generations were more careful to unite the alpha female imperative with the beta male one in imagining God, with leadership opportunities for men to include the alpha males (i.e. headship). Behind the scenes, the alpha females, if not always calling the tune, definitely made their influence felt.

“The circle is complete; fear of God is now conflated with the fear of woman’s approval. Feminine rejection IS God’s rejection. To defy the feminine imperative is to defy God, and it’s religious men who’ll advocate the most strongly for it.”

There won’t be any religious men if the alpha females stay on the wrong team, but that is unlikely to happen. My guess is that their mess of pottage is already tasting sour.

@Doomed Harlot:
“Holy cow, Feminist Hater. You think men should be legally permitted to force their wives to have sex against their will???? Why would you even want to do that????

Of course, married women should be able to say “no” to sex they don’t want. This is no greater than the privilege married men enjoy, by the way.

That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.
”

I would be fine with married women being able to say no to sex….but only if men can also neglect to fulfill their part of the marriage contract. Meaning men can pickup their bat and ball (and all of it, not leaving some behind for the wife) and leave to go get sex from some other woman.

Bottom line, men marry for sex, women marry for security.. Women get their contract filled forcefully by the State. Men are beholden to the desire of the woman to get what they married for.

Women tore up their part of the contract with the rise of feminism. So perhaps it is time that men are able to walk away without consequences and tear up their portion of the contract as well.

That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.

@RTP
The point that I did not make very well is that the time to decide whether she wants to have sex with a man is before the marriage, not afterwards. Earning the right to share the marital bed is a once for all action, and that right has been earned when the marriage takes place. The actual putting of that decision into practice comes later, after the marriage. It is not a reward that the husband has to earn again every time sex comes up for discussion, like wages from a job.

Unless the couple have separated, for example while dealing with the emotional fall out of some major problem like adultery or drug taking, and are actively trying to resolve their differences, then I see refusal as abandonment. However, I should have expected ar10308’s comment. I would (and did) make a distinction between cannot and will not. For example, my wife had surgery for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and had a wound from the operation that ran way down from almost her navel. We went without sex for about six weeks to two months, because my wife was not able to have sex. I love this woman and I had made a journey of around 75 miles from where I was working away at the time because the medic had diagnosed it as “just something you’ve eaten” and she thought (rightly) it was more serious. There was no way I would put her in danger of any further surgery by causing the wound to re-open. She was the one who started asking for sex to resume. I see this situation as qualitatively different from “I’m not putting out for you because you did not wash up while I was watching ‘Desperate Housefwifes’ and by waiting for me to wash up with you it is now too late”. But hard cases make bad law. Surely we all should be working within our marriages to express love for our spouses and to make the relationship as near as we can to the idealised form, like Christ and His church.

@DH, I agree, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I believe that tere was a case of church discipline in the 17th Century in which a woman had her husband brought before the church and required to provide her with her conjugal rights. And yes, I was talking about two separate issues. Any time a person has sex outside marriage should require a separate consent. I see sex within marriage as having implied consent unless something drastic has happened to the relationship.

Oh please. Women love being SAHMs. That’s why they stop working. Not because their husband “made” them. And there is something called alimony. As for the deadbeats, you’ve got to be kidding. Anecdotes are you. Check the stats. The overwhelming majority of men pay, and paid before the draonian Federal laws were put in place. Women institute the divorce, in most cases. And, in most cases, don’t even CLAIM abuse or adultery, let alone rape, are the reasons.

Yeah, in time, unless she remarries, her SOL goes down. But, in the meantime, she gets the house, the kids, everything in the house, the car and money from him (settlement, alimony, child support, etc). And she gets rid of him. And, maybe she can remarry. Middle aged, middle class men dread divorce, not because they are so happy in their marriages, but because they know they will get screwed financially and, worse yet, cut off from their kids (in many cases) in divorce. Middle aged, middle class women seek divorce, not because their husbands are monsters but because they are tired of them, bored, restlesss, hypergamous, unhaaaaaaapy, etc, etc., and know that they will get cash and prizes too.

Your notions have been refuted so many times it’s not even funny. Do you really think the folks here, who have been through all of this personally (many of them) and have heard it all a thousand times, are going to fall for your “women suffer from divorce” BS?

The point wasn’t to advocate rape DH. Though you jumping straight to that conclusion is quite normal for feminists. The point is to make you understand that by allowing a spouse to unilaterally withhold sex is inviting all manner of problems into the marriage. Marital rape being argued by feminists was just an example of how there is no difference between a liberal wife withholding sex and a traditional wife doing it. If there is nothing wrong with you or your spouse, physically or mentally, why would a spouse be withholding sex from the other, if not for punishment? Why the need for wide spread law covering women who should be given sex to their husbands frequently? The point of marriage is to make both spouses content in a lasting, physical relationship that produces healthy children who are then raised correctly, at least in a Christian sense. A rapist doesn’t make a good husband by definition and neither does a whore.

We all know that real, physical rape is wrong. Christians also understand that with holding love and affection from a spouse is also wrong. If two people took a decision to get married, they shouldn’t be using sex as a punishment.

This is the problem with liberals and feminists, you cannot argue the hard points because, to them, they know the only right answer. If you answer differently, you’re immediately a racist, a bigot, a women hater, a rapist, a nazi or probably all of the above.

The more I hear DH go on wild tangents, the more I realise why I don’t want or need some shrill, feminist as a wife. Seriously, go away, go sleep with some other man and be the whore you are. Perhaps try Jezebel, they seem to be more your type.

I’m an atheist. I don’t deal in “sanctity.” Marriage existed long before Judaism, let alone Christianity, and the Catholic Church did not even consider marriage a “sacrament” until the Counter Reformation. Marriage exists in almost ever human society, no matter what the religion or even if there is no religion. For folks who want to argue from a Christian or other religous perspective, that’s fine. But DH and co are arguing more generally. And, for us non religous folks, marriage is a human institution governed by human law and societal norms. For marriage to work, there has to be a quid pro quo. This was recognized, at least implicitly, in the old school, marriage 1.0, which Christians and believers in general had no problem with. Take away the quid, and there is no quo. I’m sorry if that offends your religous sensibilities, but it is a fact.

“A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. ”

so you think men are women’s property? feminism means nothing to you?

from the above “marriage in western society go back a century” link:

“Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes–$185–and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed.

“Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife. ”

duh, NSS

In particular, the book’s claim that in the year after divorce women’s standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of pundits, legislators, and judges. This statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases. It has also altered public perceptions of men, women, and divorce. It was cited hundreds of times in news stories, scholarly studies, and law review articles last year, and was regarded so clearly as holy writ that President Clinton cited it too in his budget proposal this year as part of his attack on deadbeat dads.

Rock throwing peasant – I agree that divorce is emotional and not rational for most. Which s exactl why I don’t think that women are divorcing for “cash and prizes”. There will be less money for both of them in a divorce. The money was taxed before the divorce as well. In most cases divorce is not financially motivated.

And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out?

I will note only that Dumb Harlot, like almost all feminists, reduces a woman’s value to her reproductive organs. Men, OTOH, when deciding with whom to share their property, tend to look at a broader spectrum of value. At least the wise ones do.

Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.

Wow, you guys are really making marriage look SUPER attractive. Gee, what greater privilege could there be to have some guy pick me to be contractually bound to him for “regular sex and access to [my] childbearing capabilities.” Thanks, but I’ll pass. I’d prefer to be single and living with my cats than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus.

Fortunately, marriage is not what you describe. First of all, men are not emotionally cold monsters who don’t care about an emotional intimacy and support from their wives. Secondly, women aren’t asexual. We want sex too! Thirdly, men aren’t losing economically in the deal. These days women are usually contributing (often substantially or even predominantly) to the household income. And even a traditional marriage, men have the benefit of the woman’s full-time labor taking care of the house and kids. That is not economically insignificant and this labor frees the man up to focus on his job.

Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife.
———————————————————
Sure but she doesnt actually understand this, REALLY understand it until the magical days of the temporary orders are nearly over. Then the vast majority of frivorcing women have an epiphany and either try and reconcile, or try and create more drama in the process. Some want the state to formally declare the husband is an asshole, stamped and filed.

Rock throwing peasant – I agree that divorce is emotional and not rational for most. Which s exactl why I don’t think that women are divorcing for “cash and prizes”. There will be less money for both of them in a divorce. The money was taxed before the divorce as well. In most cases divorce is not financially motivated.

And his income is still taxed. Instead of paying for two adults and two children on $100,000 in shared income, the person awarded custody of the two children now pays for one adult and two children on an adjusted income of $80,000. Considering the cost of supporting an adult is more than a child (gas, food, clothes, incidentals), there is a net gain.

I think we’re not that far off. I think you have the impression that “Cash and prizes” is the only reason why I think women initiate divorce far more often. No, I don’t think that’s it. I do think they’re sold on the “happily ever after on his dime” story. No, they initiate divorce for a myraid of reasons. Once invested in divorce, it becomes far more about cash and prizes, though. The actual reason for the divorce goes out the window because the man is out of her life as soon as divorce initiates. So, all focus goes to “cash and prizes,” with the biggest asset being the children.

DH I remarked at oz conservative that either you are stupid or disingenuous. I lean towards the former. Feminists wanted to do away with institution of marriage, and they have succeeded a great deal. It’s not a matter of great complexity as to why they would then be so interested in changing(perverting) it when they had nothing to do with it and were out there being “strong and independent”.

But what is surprising, or at least unfortunate, is that these ‘half women’ should achieve a certain leadership over many normal women, women who have all the instinctive, ineradicable feelings of wifehood and motherhood

DH arguments here are so predictable we could build a quick bot to respond.

he cannot expect spicy sex on tap
what about old age?
what about the hypothetical debilitating car wreck
Any man marrying for sex only is bad in the first place

OY

I thought she could do better.

Fact is if men realized the view women have about sex in marriage men would marry even less than they already are. Men marry and walk into the mine field today because they expect to have sex (I did NOT say they ONLY expect sex in the reloationship). If they knew sex would not occur, or be rare, or humilating to ask and be rejected 4/5 times, etc etc…..there would be few men willing to marry.
Men marry for sex that is permitted, its a huge motive, get over it

And why exactly women are women supposed to be lining up to marry some dude who views the wife as little more than a highly paid whore who gets to share “his” property in exchange for putting out?

No, no, she is his property. Get it right! And it is way more than “little more”, but it is that too, although perhaps more a slut, depending on how much jewellery she gets.

I’d prefer to be single and living with my cats than thought of as little more than a vagina-and-uterus.

You could be that and much MORE! A man will treasure his property (fuck toy) and look to her for support. She gets sex and compassion. Why do feminists always reduce women to a wet hole, as if that’s all they have to offer?

I think we’re not that far off. I think you have the impression that “Cash and prizes” is the only reason why I think women initiate divorce far more often. No, I don’t think that’s it. I do think they’re sold on the “happily ever after on his dime” story. No, they initiate divorce for a myraid of reasons. Once invested in divorce, it becomes far more about cash and prizes, though. The actual reason for the divorce goes out the window because the man is out of her life as soon as divorce initiates. So, all focus goes to “cash and prizes,” with the biggest asset being the children.
——————————————
I believe overt forethought re cash and prizes is kind of rare. The so called reasons for the divorce are mainly emotional defects, the cash is a tiny comfort, a wink towards the practical, even if she knows factually there is not enough. She will get the immediate benefit of her drug of choice, empathy. She has been getting smaller doses from the preceding drama, but the divorce will assure it is maintained for months.

CL, What are you talking about? I didn’t reduce women to a “wet hole.” Ruddyturnstone at 10:39 a.m. is the one saying men get married for regular sex and access to women’s childbearing capabilities.

I’m the one saying that women DON’T want or need to enter an arrangement that reduces them in that way. Also, I don’t believe for an instant that men are entering marriage just for a vagina-and-uterus. Unlike Mr. Turnstone and many of the folks here, I think men generally, you know, LIKE their wives.

“I do not believe that most women are financially motivated to divorce by “cash and prizes”. A married woman will have 100% of the marital assets and access to all of her husband’s income. If they divorce she will have at best half. ”

I guess you’ve never heard of men being soaked for so much alimony and child support that they have to live in their cars or move into a homeless shelter. Some divorced husbands are being ordered to pay literally more than they earn. Most divorced wives get the house, which is their former family’s greatest asset. And all of this plus being free from their horrible, boring, stable, dependable provider.

I think this idea that sex is something women do FOR men in exchange for other things is completely bizarre. It certainly seems to be culturally specific to Christian traditionalists. In Orthodox Jewish tradition, sexual satisfaction is considered to be a duty the husband owes to the wife, who has a right to it. This call the mitzvot of onah. Husbands can get exemptions for things like military service, and men who have jobs that require them to travel have less of an obligation. But sex, including nonprocreative sex, is considered a duty he owes to her.

Now, I don’t advocate this. I think the duty goes both ways. But the point is that not all cultures see women as asexual creatures who trade their bodies.

The real peterman – a man being ordered to pay more than he earns doesn’t put any additional money in the ex wife’s pocket. The scenario that you describe is not common. Most men don’t even pay enough child support to cover half the costs of raising their child.

No, but it puts him in contempt of the court order which in turn means he could go to jail. Once a man goes to jail, you might as well put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. He ain’t going to work for you no more!

“Starviolet is right. Logically, divorce is going to result in a reduced standard of living for both husband and wife. ”

Well that’s why Lenore Weitzman’s lies which were then put into practice(as given above) and feminist a-bloo a-bloo about poor single divorced mothers saw to that men would get more than their fair share of the reduction.

“Also, I don’t believe for an instant that men are entering marriage just for a vagina-and-uterus. ”

again with the stupidity.
“just for” applies when they are getting the said things, the vagina and uterus status don’t change based on woman’s marriage state because feminists have corrupted the whole concept under the guise of freedom, equality, liberty, women’s right to body, marital rape and yada yada yada. They used to do when husbands were “raping” their wives, and getting raped in return.
Today men are finding that women’s hearts are not that far from their vaginas.

DH, I am also stating that women are not reduced by entering into a traditional marriage. After all, I clearly stated that you could aspire to be more than “just a vagina-and-uterus”, yet you still have those parts and if you like sex, they are going to be utilized.

Why does it bother you if a man wants this and a woman agrees to it? Why do you keep posting on these blogs as if looking for approval?

The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.

without jonah goldberg’s wife’s arresting beauty (lozllz!), neocon woman expectations, and neocon woman demands (lzozll! omg lozlzlz!), jonah goldberg would be out playing lord of the flies, running around with no shirt on down K street, rockin’ out with his goldberg neocon cock (neocock) out, ducking into bars to ravage all that his rightfully his as an untamed beta-male neocon. lozlzlzl!

why do neocons think that we are all like them?

also, throughout the history of mankind, it has been men who have laid down the law–from homer and moses on down–not pussified neoconning goldberg’s wife & her feminist friends. lzozll! i mean lookw hat the fmeinist movement has done to the family lzzozlzl! WTF is goldberg thinking????? Single mother familes r good?? Have you ever dated a few chicks with no fatehrs goldberg? If so, and you still wnat fatherless families, where teh neocons repalce teh father with debt-based fiat dolalrs, you hate women & love ur kinky kink & shiznit yo.

The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.

hahahahah! what goldberg is saying that is if his wife didn’t lay down the law, he would be a beasty man alpha male, smacking women around, rocking out with his cock out, as that is in Jonah Goldberg’s true, deep, neocon nature. lozllz! he admits it! and then he projects his neocon nature on the entire world as neocons do to justify their pre-emptive, illegal, unconstitutional wars! lzozll!

you guys do understand that feminism is an illegal, pre-emptive war waged against men, the family, and children to profit the fiat neocons, right? lozlzl!

“To say that liberalism is rooted in fascism because Mussolini had once been a socialist says that Goldberg’s …neo-conservatism must be rooted in Communism. Look at the roots of prominent neocons: Irving Kristol is a former Trotskyist and Josh Muravchik is a YPSL alum. …Jonah Goldberg …therefore Bolshevik Conservatives? … ” –http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/117981

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

–http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

Goldberg sees depopulation and the decline of birth rates as a good thing. lozlzlzlzl !!!

“Forgetting the question of decency and morality for a moment, there’s the matter of national interests. Female equality seems to be a pretty reliable treatment for many of the world’s worst pathologies. Population growth in the Third World tends to go down as female literacy goes up. Indeed, female empowerment might be the single best weapon in the “root causes” arsenal in the war on terror.” –http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg?page=2

as a neocon it is jonah goldberg’s DIVINE RIGHT to plan and effect the world’s population. lozlzl!

is it any wonder the trotskyite, power-hungry, neocons had to kill the memory of edmund burke, moses, jesus, homer, and russell kirk? lozlzlz! to make room for jonah goldberg’s chubby face & endless neocon betamale prattling, as his wife keeps him tame, dulling his true, inherent, lord of the flies nature? lozlzl

If I were looking for approval, would I not be telling you and the other commenters here how right they are?

No, you want us to accept your choices. None of the men had tried to reduce a woman to “little more than a vagina-and-uterus.” There was some sarcasm and exxageration to show this is absurd but is kinda the state women cave created. The men want more than that from a woman, yet you reduced it to that.

It seems that no one has been “saying [or advocating] men marry women ‘just for’ the uterus and vagina.” Yet DH is going on and on about this. DH, whose opinion are you taking issue with?

Cane CaldoYesterday I was reading up on the legal history of adultery, and came across the phrase “alienation of affection”. I’d never heard of it before.

Interesting that it was new to you, it used to be a term that was quite common. Probably I watch more old movies, and read more books written before 1960 than most people.

FH says:Is he secretly working for a law firm by any chance?!

My money says he’s rationalizing his wife’s behavior.

Very possible, but she’s hardly unique. This kind of thinking is embedded in Churchian circles rather deeply. And let me remind you, Cane Caldo, this is a leader of the SBC – you know, the hardline types you grew up with? These are the men who teach Bible to preachers, who then teach other men.

This is why churchgoing men need Game. Because “just read the Bible” doesn’t work. Because men like Mohler teach the Bible their way, to preachers who then teach entire churches.

Because Game comes from a different angle, and because Game techniques work even when a man expects them to fail, there is not going to be as much resistance in the mind of a churchgoing man, as there will be if you sit down with him and tell him that his pastor, his men’s group leader, his Sunday school leader, and pretty much all the people who have ever taught Bible to him were wrong in critical ways, but you are right.

George Gilder is fairly interesting when he sticks to things he knows about. Unfortunately he’s apparently a hopeless neo-Victorian pedestalizer when it comes to women. The absurd notion that “women civilize men” is very common at places like National Review. The reality as we know here in the androsphere is that men build civilizations, women socialize boys and girls.

The tradcon / socon world hasn’t even really discovered hypergamy yet, so they persist in the error that women are naturally monogamous, even when data from the real world such as divorce data, out-of-marriage birth data, etc. are in their faces. Pretty lies, indeed.

Tried to get that second link to load and it’s just not working. I found the USDA calculator Calculator.

Not seeing how the need isn’t met, especially factoring in providing healthcare costs. If you add child support to healthcare and other means of support (for example, what is not factored is the expense when the father [or noncustodial] has the child for the court appointed days). So, while support can be pegged at X dollars, is that for true 100% of the time custody or for 70% or so custody? Do you understand what I mean? I may not be clear. If the custodial parent has 70% custody, they don’t get awarded money for 100% of the costs to raise the child for 70$ of the time.

In PA, if I had the standard 70/30 split, I’d be looking at approx $2,000 a month in support and I’d be on the bill for healthcare costs. I do not make a princely living, by any means, and it would reduce my income to almost nothing (literally). It would be about 75% taken. Meanwhile, the wife who racked up $50,000 in credit card debt would have $2,000 tax free to add to her income until the boys turn 18.

CL,
OK, I’ve said this numerous times and referenced this numerous times in the thread. I couldn’t have made it clearer. The comment which argues that men want wives to serve as vagina-and-uterus is this one from Ruddyturnstone at 10:39 a.m.:

Shocking, isn’t it, DH, that men actually expect that marriage will come with benefits for them, as well as for their wives. No scare quotes, pre marriage, it is HIS money. She wants access to it. To support herself and the kids she wants to have. And she wants emotional intimacy and tenderness. In return, he wants regular sex and access to her childbearing capabilities. That’s what marriage is, or should be, all about. It’s a contract. A deal. It is NOT scandalous that men should actually want something out of the deal, in return for what they put into it. Nor that one of, if not the main, thing that they want is to satisfy their relentless sex drive.

I quoted it verbatim in my initial response to it at 10:55 a.m. At 11:11 a.m., you said in response to my comment that feminists always want to reduce women to nothing more than a “wet hole.” You were wrong. It was Mr. Turnstone’s comment that reduced women in this way. Fine, if you want to explain away what he said as hyperbole, go for it. But don’t turn this around on me.

As for me wanting the approval of folks like you, that is pure delusional self-flattery. Why can’t you just accept that sometimes people enjoy talking to those on the other side of the aisle, CL?

Ruddyturnstone did not reduce a woman to that, but did make it clear that sex was part of the deal. As such he never said that was ALL a woman was good for. You misread and exaggerated and are arguing against a position that was never advocated.

The Catholic Church gets this right (though you’ll have to look hard to find a priest to tell you about it today). The term used is “marriage debt,” and it refers specifically to the fact that both parties owe their spouse sex whenever asked, with reasonable exceptions for serious illness or pain. Headaches don’t count: if your spouse wants sex and you have a headache, you suck it up and perform anyway. It’s a family obligation, and you can’t shrug it off any more than you’d say, “Nah, I have a headache,” when you hear your child crying in the night.

The average child support payment is about $350 the median is even less than that. When I look at child support and alimony laws for various states I am not seeing any where someone can be forced to give away 75% of their income in child support and alimony. I’m sure that there are some cases somewhere where men we treated unfairly, but I suspect that these cases are far from typical.

I don’t think many women turn to divorce for the cash and prizes, but I do think that during the process, that can become an incentive — or at the very least, they can soothe any worries about poverty she might have that otherwise might make her reconsider. I also think there are many cases where, though the woman may not focus on the money she will get out of it, she does enjoy the damage she will be doing to her ex by taking it away from him — even if most of it goes to the lawyers.

And let’s be real: during the marriage, she may have access to 100% of the money, but she also has a husband helping to spend it and criticizing her spending. Unless he’s totally whipped, she can’t just spend on whatever she likes, and he might buy something like a bass boat that she has no interest in at all. (Ever heard a woman talk about a major expenditure by her husband as if he stole it from her?)

After the divorce, she may only get half or less, but she can spend it on whatever she likes, without him looking over her shoulder. So she goes from 50% control over 100% of the money, to 100% control over 50% of the money, or even 100% control over 25% of the money. The most important part for someone fed up with a marriage is the 100% control, even if the amount is less in the end.

“George Gilder is fairly interesting when he sticks to things he knows about.”

Gilder should have shut up 20 years ago. He was a techno-geek for a long time and almost everyone who followed his recommendations lost their shirts.

As for his “women civilize men” nonsense, I tell these types that men created civilization. If anything, men civilize women. After all, all you have to do is look at what’s happened to many women today since men have failed in their duty to civilize them.

@Starviolet, I pay 7 times that (combined spousal support and child support) and make 60K. She makes 45K (before transfer payments). My arrears are not trivial either. My situation may be extreme, but similar situations are not that rare.

The law is not followed and imputed income can result in bizarre outcomes. Then there is no recourse for adjustment (although the law says there is). Family court is less realistic than the IRS.

When I look at child support and alimony laws for various states I am not seeing any where someone can be forced to give away 75% of their income in child support and alimony. I’m sure that there are some cases somewhere where men we treated unfairly, but I suspect that these cases are far from typical.

And the cost of medical insurance? And is it for what % of custody? These questions matter.

No. I don’t know how you can’t find it. In PA, it’s a calculation. Plug in the numbers and the money is taken from your paycheck (and, as a bonus, you get to pay for the DRS visit in which they take your money, since you’re the one that “owes”). There was no bargaining to it. We sat down, gave income figures, gave insurance numbers, other expenses associated with the boys, and it cranked out $2,000 a month for a guy making under $50,000 a year. I was able to mitigate that amount, but only because custody shifted for one son and because she made more than I did, but otherwise my take home for a month would be $600 a month after support.

Well, now we’re getting somewhere. Don’t forget you misread my comment to try to make feminists out to somehow “reduce” women. As for your interpretation of Ruddyturnstone’s comment, mmmm, I don’t know. He is saying that marriage is a quid pro quo in which women are looking for dollars and emotional intimacy and the men in it for sex and childbearing services. I disagree. I think men care a lot about emotional intimacy with women.

Thank you for proving my point that traditionalists think of marriage as little more than prostitution.

You are quite right that men and women do engage in quid pro quo exchanges of money-for-sex. But the point is that this is not inevitably so. You all seem to forget that women have sexual needs too. It’s not JUST something women do for men.

It’s not morally okay for either husbands or wives to withdraw sexually from each other. And ideally, a woman will support herself, but if you enter into an arrangement where you’re supporting the woman, then, yeah, you are taking on a major responsibility. I’m not the one advocating that kind of arrangement.

The kind of lies in the OP are not only disgusting and pathetic in an of themselves, but they offend me deeply, because I know so many decent people getting destroyed by these lies, and their children too. They are immediately, directly harming children and families and that really makes me angry. I can’t just sneer at the irony because it is too grievous.

Stingray says:Sex IS emotional intimacy for men. (You also added “in an LTR or marriage.”)

I totally agree that it CAN be — same for women too. But it’s hard to view sex as “emotional intimacy,” when it’s framed as an obligation the woman has in exchange for financial support and other kinds of emotional intimacy. One reason sex IS so emotionally intimate is that it’s about partners providing pleasure for each other, not one partner demanding sex as a quid pro quo.

Why not ask her, or any other woman, why she does not protest the unfairness of child support laws? That will tell you more about what women are about, than anything else.

Um, because I don’t think they’re unfair. Look, if I have a kid and get divorced, I’ll be the one paying support because my husband will have primary custody. But it seems incredibly burdensome to expect the primary caretaker of young children to provide an accounting of every dime spent.

Starviolet,
I honestly believe you are making a good faith effort, given information you have read. I don’t think you’re looking to cut corners or hedge data.

I just telling you that the reality I faced was not $350 a month.

On Weds, we have yet another custody meeting. The oldest is now asking for joint custody and I have two therapists who will call in, extending support for joint custody (one was her “hired gun” that is now in my camp). The problem is, I have to get her to agree to give up custody and the support money, because at this stage we can’t force an agreement (going before a concilliator, not a judge). I anticipate her refusing and forcing us before a judge. My lawyer said the judge will take my son’s testimony (he’s old enough for his opinion to matter), the word of therapists, and (likely) the concilliator before a decision. Last time we met, the concilliator was trying to get to joint custody and she flatly refused. She has a financial interest in this.

If her financial needs were not being met, why not pass half the burden to me? You know, let me absorb half the costs by feeding, housing, clothing him half the time.

>>First of all, men are not emotionally cold monsters who don’t care about an emotional intimacy and support from their wives.

But if we act nice & love & intimate & soft, we’re no longer the guy you were interested in. We turn into doormats. What you actually want, is to keep wanting that stuff, because once you get it, you are not haaaaapy.

>>Secondly, women aren’t asexual. We want sex too!

Indeed. Preferably with as many Alpha bad boys as possible, then when the wear & tear starts getting to you and the crow’s feet start showing up, then you want either a (somehow) marriage-oriented alpha, or failing that, a really strong beta provider.

>>>Thirdly, men aren’t losing economically in the deal. These days women are usually contributing (often substantially or even predominantly) to the household income.

Patently false. You know, there are legal publications that do regular accountings of divorce settlements. Men get stuck paying long after the marriage shatters – >70% of the time at her behest. And, the majority of men in marriage are still the primary breadwinner, it doesn’t matter how many times Hannah Rosin predicts that men are done as a subspecies. I don’t practice family law but the falsity of your assertions on this point can be factually disproved – a good job for any law student reading this blog.

TFH,
I won’t say my sons are better off in a broken house, because my wife and I neer fought. We may have had a loveless/unhaaappy marriage, but it wasn’t a poisoned envornoment.

That said, I’ve woken from my slumber. I’m now more committed to being a father and training my sons to be strong in faith and strong men (i.e. not beta or Churchians). I’m about 2/3rds through a book for fathers in my situation to help them build themselves and raise godly, masculine boys. I credit sites, like this, with speeding me through the stages of divorce to a healthy point of getting on with my life in a positive direction.

The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity, and is living in sexual integrity with his wife. In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.

I agree that it is good for a man to live in purity and to be careful to live, talk, lead and love in a way that helps his wife to find fulfillment…why not exhort men to this good conduct?

Where I think he is wrong is to say that women are somehow justified in choosing not to obey God if their husbands are not doing these things. We will each answer for our own sins someday.

On the issue of porn: I looked at 1 Cor 7:5 again just to double check; here is what is does not say:

Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again unless Satan has tempted your husband with nudie pics, in which case shuteth thy legs forever.

On the marital rape conversation: I’ve been called a rape apologist by saying this, but I don’t see how you can rape your own wife. I can’t steal my own car. I’m allowed to use it whenever I want.

Anonymous Reader said: And let me remind you, Cane Caldo, this is a leader of the SBC – you know, the hardline types you grew up with? These are the men who teach Bible to preachers, who then teach other men.

There is a reason I left the SBC. One way to look at it is that I had grown weary of the old hypocrisies, and wanted to experience some new ones.

This is why churchgoing men need Game. Because “just read the Bible” doesn’t work. Because men like Mohler teach the Bible their way, to preachers who then teach entire churches.

Depending on what you mean by Game: smarter bloggers than I are now disagreeing with you; some outright, some gradually.

More importantly: if you think Christian men are generally reading scripture for their own edification–for love of that scripture itself; as a child sits at the feet of a beloved master–then you’re fooling yourself. It isn’t the problem that men lack understanding. The problem is they assume they understand, and that scripture is confirmation of what they already know.

Men like Mohler are stumbling blocks, but the way existed before them. We don’t abandon the road because something is in the way. We clear it. In so far as Game can be the trail of powder to the clearing blast of good theology, I have no problem with it.

But more and more I read supposedly Christian men desiring to blow up not just the stumbling block, but the church beside the road, the paving stones themselves, and any men and women they can throw in within the radius: I say NO.

You really have to stop using the phrase “Trad Con.” In the first place, “Traditional conservative” is a redundancy; from whom are you trying to distinguish them? Non-traditional conservatives? For someone like me who is not familiar with the Dalrockosphere’s redefinition of the plain meaning of words, it is hard to follow you.

For instance, you write:

Trad Cons act much like a drift sock; they aren’t anchored to a fixed position so they simply act as a drag against whatever the current direction of change is.

This is nonsensical on its face. A traditional conservative, insofar as he is traditional and conservative, cannot by definition “act … like a drift sock.” If he is “simply act[ing] as a drag against … the current direction of change,” rather than endeavoring to alter that direction back to traditional modes, he is not conservative; he is an accomplice of the change-agent. A Trad Con “stands athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!'” He doesn’t stand beside history waving it through like a matador.

In poli-economic terms, there are government spending advocates, there are spending opponents, and there are those who seek to slow the rate of spending growth. A great deal of what’s labeled modern “conservatism” finds refuge in the latter category. But Trad Cons are for rollback. Not containment, not detente, and certainly not for resigning oneself to “inevitability” and the sovereignty of the idols of the age.

You would be better off identifying these people for who they really are. If Pastor Driscoll or Dr. Moehler is indeed an unwitting radical in the traditionalist’s clothing, it doesn’t matter how they label themselves (in fact, they have a positive incentive to mislabel themselves). All that matters is the descriptive term.

In this case they seem like cryptofeminists. Your beef isn’t with the fact that they are “conserving” a “tradition.” You just think they are conserving the wrong tradition, a relatively modern one. If anything they need to become more traditional and locate the focus of their conservation in the fundaments of the culture, such as the Bible, great art, literature, and perhaps venerable political customs, rather than the faddish dogmas of the left.

I am a traditional conservative, through and through. I have not been fooled by the dogmas of the 20th century. I refuse to even use the word “capitalism” because it is a Marxist term. Ditto “homosexual” — as if sodomy somehow became elevated to the equal of procreative sex, to the point of establishing the ability to “choose” one’s identity around a predilection. And it pains me to even type in quotes “same-sex marriage”: we concede the premises of arguments before we ever engage them, and then we wonder why we are always grasping for defenses against “bigotry” (which never appease anyway).

Words matter. Ideas count. Use them more carefully and deliberately. If you truly want to engage the Driscolls and Moehlers of the world, begin by labeling them accurately, and take the fight to them for misrepresenting themselves. Your criticism otherwise is lost before you get started. In your intramural squabbling, you inadvertently support the feminist prerogative to define the bounds of legitimacy. Like you, Driscoll and Moehler think they are supporting tradition rather than the comfortable legitimacy of the enemies of tradition. That makes them our allies, not our opponents, if only we can agree on the error.

We are preoccupied fighting each other rather than deploying the one strategy that can unite: fraternal correction. Get in the business of coalition building. Find allies rather than reasons for alienating those with whom you agree 80% of the time.

The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity, and is living in sexual integrity with his wife. In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, to talk, to lead, and to love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.

I agree that it is good for a man to live in purity and to be careful to live, talk, lead and love in a way that helps his wife to find fulfillment…why not exhort men to this good conduct?

Where I think he is wrong is to say that women are somehow justified in choosing not to obey God if their husbands are not doing these things. We will each answer for our own sins someday.

The more fundamental problem is he sets the wife up as the authority. Her sex drive is the arbiter of what is righteous or not, and he is living a righteous life in order to please his wife. Then he makes it worse by stating that without having a wife to be accountable to, Christian men will be uncouth.

On the marital rape conversation: I’ve been called a rape apologist by saying this, but I don’t see how you can rape your own wife. I can’t steal my own car. I’m allowed to use it whenever I want.

Except that you are not an “it,” SSM. You are a human being. You have a will that matters as much as your husband’s matters. It would not be okay for your husband to force you to have sex against your will. And you have a right to be safe from assault in your own home.

“Thank you for proving my point that traditionalists think of marriage as little more than prostitution.

You are quite right that men and women do engage in quid pro quo exchanges of money-for-sex. But the point is that this is not inevitably so. You all seem to forget that women have sexual needs too. It’s not JUST something women do for men.

It’s not morally okay for either husbands or wives to withdraw sexually from each other. And ideally, a woman will support herself, but if you enter into an arrangement where you’re supporting the woman, then, yeah, you are taking on a major responsibility. I’m not the one advocating that kind of arrangement.
”

Neat trick: I say that marriage includes trading of sex for money/security and you accuse me of saying that is ALL that it is.

It’s common knowledge in the world of biology that MEN have testosterone and actually fight for the ability to mate with women. It’s fairly clear that sex drive is FAR greater in men than it is in women. If not, then we would not even be having this discussion. A wife witholding sex would be a non-issue.

Yet you are still quite adept at avoiding my point, that men are beholden to the marriage contract, even post-divorce, where-as women are not. Women can withdraw man’s ability to satisfy his intense biological desire, but she pays no price for it. Where-as men pay a price for picking up their things and walking away.

All marriage (and divorce) is supporting the woman. All you need to do is take a gander at family court to prove that point.

But more and more I read supposedly Christian men desiring to blow up not just the stumbling block, but the church beside the road, the paving stones themselves, and any men and women they can throw in within the radius: I say NO.

I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Do you have any examples of this?

Starviolet and DH are doing the ole playing dumb thing. Starviolet is especially one to play that game. DH is just being herself here on Dalrocks blog.
Using their “logic” at any time a man can just gather his kids up and order his wife out. And as for a woman only being a pussy hole and a uterus, well look at you two, based on the nasty comments I would hate to be married to either one of you. And based purely on your responses to conversation and this article you two are unworthy wifes and all you have to offer is a pussy hole and uterus. And you two know it and are damn proud of it.
All you big time christian men out there Cane, Micheal etc. you fellas need game or the church needs to get out of the family business and leave that up to us men. Which one of you scripture trivia champions is ready to shame some guy into marrying Starviolet. Which one is ready to lead a prayer for DH husband to elevate himself to a level of approval that will bring on a tingle to allow him to eat her pussy.

The more fundamental problem is he sets the wife up as the authority. Her sex drive is the arbiter of what is righteous or not, and he is living a righteous life in order to please his wife.

Oh yes, yes, I totally agree with this, and I meant to mention it in my comment but got distracted. It isn’t even possible to live a righteous life to please one’s wife because the moment he starts supplicating to her, her list of requirements will multiply exponentially. Husbands and wives should both be seeking to obey and please God above all else, and independent of what each other chooses to do.

This is actually a huge problem in Christianity, especially for new converts. Not to personalize, but my husband and I didn’t have a problem before becoming Christians with him supplicating to me (we had other problems), but after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.

After some time, and searching Scripture, he surmised that I was not more spiritually mature and that even if I was, I didn’t get to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I do wish influential Christians such as Mohler and others would be more careful to preach only what is Biblical; they do great damage to new converts such as we were.

DHtries to poison the argument about sex within marriage (or witholding it from her man) by saying Traditionalists look at it as prostitution.

She likes to avoid that sex is a requirement of marriage, just see how successful one is without it.

I think it is reasonable for men to have the option to walk away with everything that is (or was) their own so that they can then better fulfill their sexual needs in the event the wife invokes the sexual monopoly power play.

Why do women find that so offensive? If their man suddenly got fat and lazy, wouldn’t they want the same right to walk away to find a better prospect? What could be more fair.

Oh wait, it’s not about fair. It’s about a secure environment for the woman to fulfill her needs but neglect her husband’s needs. Once marriage hits, she has the power of the State behind her to enforce her will.

This is why marriage was never about religion, but about the State. I have no idea why we as a society have decided to mix a religious union (Marriage) with a State contract. We refer to them as if they are the same thing, but they are not even close.

I never said that you claim that sex-for-security is ALL there is to marriage. I said you claimed that it is INEVITABLY so. That’s categorically untrue. There are plenty of women who, you know, WANT to have sex with their husbands. It’s not a trade. And, while still a minority, there are plenty of women who outearn their husbands, and therefore don’t have any reason to trade sex for goodies.

But even in a marriage with a traditional division of labor, sex should not be viewed as a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is housework-and-child-care-for-financial-support. Sex is a mutual thing — or at least it is if you want it to be satisfying. If a man treats his wife like she owes him, then it is little surprise if his sex life is unsatisfying.

You say that men have a higher sex drive than women, and that may well be true on average. But it’s not always true in every marriage, and that doesn’t mean women have NO sex drive. The ideal ]shoudl be for a couple to meet half-way.

@ DH
I am only speaking to and about Christians I suppose. For Christians, we believe that the husband and wife become one flesh. We believe that husbands and wives have the right to expect sexual access to one another on a regular basis. We don’t believe women have the right to refuse for no good reason; if she does, she is in sin. Of course, a man won’t likely force himself on her, but I don’t think it would necessarily be wrong for him to do so; it’s just that he would rather persuade her to leave her sinful way.

King Matt
Finally a post from you i can wholeheartedly agree with. It is as an unwritten rule in the majority of the testostosphere to decry and or berate traditional conservatives. This is so heartily embraced that, when i began, my screen name was “conservativation”, which i had carried for years. Here (not blaming Dalrock, Im just being specific) I started posting and was pummeled by a certain *legendary* testostosphere pontificating curmudgeon who fancies himself (and others fancy him as well) as one with moxy and heft. No listing of one’s core beliefs in the simplest of terms was even enough to shift the topic off of me and my evil trad con-ism. Only after a day of wrangling and a name change did the topic return to the topic.
I am not one who subscribes to the rather popular (but self perceived unique) positions about politics for example that all parties are the same and everyone is just a version of the other and that there are no real conservatives or traditionalists or whatever we want to call them, this sort of nuanced projection people seem to like so much that look there below in yonder valley at all those pedestrians while we very few can actually sit up here……different…..and see that they are all tilting at windmills down there.
Note: I am accusing no one specifically of anything here so much as making a very general observation.
I agree Matt that it is US who devalue the term(s) by these accusations, and we diminish the many who actually hold those beliefs and are not thus corrupted in either gender politics or fiscal or whatever, and all the debating terms and definitions is a created drama.

I absolutely believe that sex is a moral requirement of marriage. I believe I said that above. Both husband and wives owe each other sexual contact.

I also don’t have a problem with the general notion that ONGOING withholding of sex can be categorized as “abandonment” for the purpsoes of assigning fault in a divorce. Obviously, the devil will be in some of the details, such as how one defines “ongoing” or what happens if one spouse has unorthodox sexual desires.

I just don’t think sex should be treated as quid pro quo. I think that will wreck the sex for both parties involved.

after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.
————————————————————–
You just described salvation by Personal Jesus (TM) brilliantly, thankfully you found the real one.

Most women divorce to punish their husbands. They usually don’t realize how much it hurts their bottom line until it’s done. Nothing pisses off a women as much as her ex-husband doing well and worse getting a new hotter wife or GF.

SSM,
No, I get the one flesh concept, and I thnk it’s lovely when couples make a habit of saying “yes,” to each other. And YES, I would certainly expect that the vast, vast majority of husbands would not force themselves on their wives.

But some men would and do. And they should be prosecuted under the criminal laws of this country, which are secular, not Christian.

We can start with the Sunday Morning Night Club, and the cheering-on it gets from too many who call themselves Christians. There is the idea that men availing themselves of sluts is not only to be expected, but is in itself good–“doing the Lord’s work”. Even the Bible calls them evils spirits, and God is not pleased to destroy the world in flood, or Sodom with fire.

There is much of what I can only interpret as glee in the idea of cat ladies and grass widows. Aside from the current uncharitable nature (that is antithetical to the God of love who wrote 1 Corinthians 13), there will be the future logistical problem of how to feed and house these poor creatures when they can’t work and the so-called social “safety-net” have–necessarily–contracted.

The vengeful spirit against brutal and feral women cannot help the men who have been so very badly damaged by the Moehler’s and Driscoll’s of the world either. The anger is just, and a cure is needed, but it is not spite. There should be more consideration on the idea that spite is considered a female foible.

I disagree with Matt King on making common cause with Driscolls and Moehlers, and other Balaams in the world. They will not see their error. God could reveal an angel with a flaming sword to them, that any ass could see, and they’ll still eventually lead the church into great sin.

But some men would and do. And they should be prosecuted under the criminal laws of this country, which are secular, not Christian.

I disagree with you.

We must love God, but we must also fear (respect) Him.

Women might love their husbands, but they have no fear of (respect for) them. The law neuters mens’ ability to maintain order in their own households. Preferably a man keeps order by inspiring love and obedience; if this does not work, I see no reason why he should not be able to use coercion just to the point of regaining control of the situation and his wife’s respect.

To say that sex isn’t an important component in marriage is merely being daft. Everything we do is driven by a need and sex is no different. Marriage is the sanctified outlet for sexual desires for Christians. It’s through marriage that the damaging effects of sexual desires are contained and instead focused towards family and children.

DH has no concept of why restriction is necessary. To her, the only necessary aspect of our existence is to be autonomous beings, following our intense desires to the letter and being answerable to the State only. The State is God. As long as our immediate self is gratified, there are no other worries. No need to worry about the future; just print more money, no need to worry about broken families or the death of the family; some technology will be invented and fix that or the State can just print more money. It’s an endless loop of government intervention. How can humans call themselves adults today when the State has to constantly ‘bail’ them out or provide free stuff? The genre of entitlement for this generation borders on insanity, if it has not already crossed that threshold. For DH, there is nothing else to live for, nothing greater than her needs and desires. Her career, if she really has one, is the be all and end all. She doesn’t care about family, she doesn’t care about tradition and she certainly doesn’t care for her husband. What does DH’s ‘Liberation’ really mean anyway? Doesn’t sound like real freedom to me. To me it seems that ‘liberation’ is just another word for ‘tyranny’, tyranny of the eternally ‘oppressed’ masses, via the State and its handlers.

Which leads me to this. What purpose do we have if we merely live for the now, fulfilling our every want and need via carnal satisfaction? We don’t grow, we don’t learn to appreciate the world for how it really works. We don’t use our God given gift, you know the brain, to understand what exactly life is about. It’s like an actress playing a role, she’s merely pretending to be something she isn’t, it ain’t real. It’s playing a part, one that in the end cannot fulfill her anyway.

I disagree with Matt King on making common cause with Driscolls and Moehlers, and other Balaams in the world. They will not see their error. God could reveal an angel with a flaming sword to them, that any ass could see, and they’ll still eventually lead the church into great sin.
—————————————————————
Cane
I think you misunderstood him….of course it may be me misunderstanding him. But also, if you read the rest of your post, then you read these comments you make here, there is a lack of congruence by my perception, and again, I could be wrong

Danger
Very interesting your comment. I saw in your comment a man that in frustration religion should not be a part of marriage and it should just be the state. Not direct quote but my understanding. That is not christianity it is pussy worship of churchianity That is a religion that marriage was never about.
Now DH you are right sex in marriage is not a quid pro quo it is a duty to honor as part of the vow of marriage. A wedding is done for the marriage not for the tingle of the guy or girl you are marry. Your faith in the marriage and the word of god is the motivation and purpose. And then with out looking and know god provides the damn tingles. Sunshinemary just discribed it in action with her comment in bold print to Dalrock.

@Red“Nothing pisses off a women as much as her ex-husband doing well and worse getting a new hotter wife or GF.”

Money is not even necessary to get a fine woman. CL is years younger than my ex. I am not trading up since I did not file for or seek a divorce, but still a decent divorced man can often do much better than the woman that divorced him by claiming he is a worthless man. I don’t care about pissing of my ex, but a younger (hotter) pleasant woman suits me fine!

Eh DH, I brought up the issue of a ‘liberated wife’ and a ‘traditional wife’ both using ‘sex’ as a means to punish men. I did not actually bring up rape, I brought the example of ‘marital rape’ being used by liberal women to punish men who marry.

No DH, not exactly. Yes he floated the notion, but he didn’t -bring it up-. You took the notion and ran with it using it as that to which you juxtaposed the rest of the comments by him and others, because it plays well, it generates autonomous empathy, a less satisfying empathy experience, but better’n nuthin

I’m speaking particularly of pastors, priests, etc. It may be that Moehler or Driscoll can be reformed as laity, but not as leaders. There is a difference between being a corrupt attendee, and officiating the services and ceremonies. Balaam’s sin was so pernicious because of his status as a respected prophet of God.

Matthew King, I’m not Dalrock, but I’ve been through this argument before. The No True Scotsman fallacy is entertaining, once, and then grows tedious. IF a group of people call themselves “conservative”, then I will use that word to refer to them. If a group of people call themselves “traditionalists”, then likewise. Those who call themselves “traditional conservatives” hold a variety of views, and they can be found in many corners of the web, but an awful lot of them are neo-Victorians who put women on pedestals, just as Dalrock mentioned in the OP.

I find that many “traditionalist” “conservatives” are expressing political and social positions that were probably moderate liberalism 35 years ago. Many a man prior to 1970 or so was proud of the fact that after he married, his wife quit her day job that paid money and never had to work for money every again, not a single day. Such a man would regard those “traditional” “conservatives” who insist that women should go to college, then work to establish a career, then look for a husband as fools and radicals. The reality is that many, if not most, “traditional” “conservative” people today are exactly what Dalrock says, they are dragging masses. They aren’t taking any kind of real stand, they are just reacting to other people’s positions.

Rather than split hairs endlessly in search of the True Conservative, I prefer to take people’s self labeling at their word and proceed onward. Some TradCons don’t like this, because they would rather harangue the rest of us about how Not True TradCon other TradCons are. I’ve seen this game played by feminists – the radfems are not True Feminists to the equity feminists who are not True Feminists to the gender feminists who are not True Feminists to the 3rd Wave, etc.

All such a debate does is degrade any useful discussion to zero, and substitute sterile definitional arguments for something real. Such a tactic is useful if one’s goal is to effectively end any real debate…

Oh man, just when I thought we were scooting along the dry beneath the muck, the muck of the muck, I open my email and get the little weekly newsletter from Dennis and Barbara Rainy.

This stuff makes me sick. Here is this woman claiming that the best gift her husband ever gave her was to tell her he will love her forever even if she never makes love with him again (and as you can see she was not talking about the goofy automobile accident scenario…..
———————————————————————

“”I knew he wanted to make love and he needed me, but I just couldn’t respond in that moment.

I felt guilty—I hated myself for being so complicated. Dennis was frustrated over his inability to love me enough to make me forget my fears.

Finally the tension became too much, and Dennis grabbed a bottle of hand lotion on the side of the bed and threw it across the room. Instead of hitting the wall, the bottle broke a small pane of glass in the window!

The room became very still. I began to cry. I loved my husband and didn’t want to hurt him.

Then Dennis said something that I never expected to hear. Something that became a milestone in our marriage. He tenderly cupped my face in his hands and said from his heart, “Barbara, I want you to know that I love you, and I am committed to you. I will love you for the rest of your life, even if we never, ever make love again.”

Then he kissed me on the forehead and gathered me into a warm embrace with no strings attached, and we eventually fell asleep in each other’s arms. No gift of any price could have meant more.

That evening in Mazatlan was a make-it-or-break-it moment in our marriage. We learned that sacrifice is the language of romance, and selfishness is the language of isolation and rejection. Commitment inspires one to sacrifice, and sacrifice makes commitment a rare jewel to be cherished.

PS. My husband’s sincere proclamation of love made me want to be with him physically more than ever the next day!
————————————————————
LOOKEE……he EARNED her sex the very next day.
He got scratched behind the ears, a biscuit, and she wanted him!

This is seriously jacked up to celebrate this. The reason it is celebrated is very simple. The narrative spread around by the men in this post, and the Rainey’s and such is the ALL men want is sex. Never mind if that’s true or not….its the starting point of measuring any situation.
Hence, he is essentially shit tested to prove that he sees her heart and its NOT her sex that he wants, he wants her (sniff).

“I absolutely believe that sex is a moral requirement of marriage. I believe I said that above. Both husband and wives owe each other sexual contact.

I also don’t have a problem with the general notion that ONGOING withholding of sex can be categorized as “abandonment” for the purpsoes of assigning fault in a divorce. Obviously, the devil will be in some of the details, such as how one defines “ongoing” or what happens if one spouse has unorthodox sexual desires.

I just don’t think sex should be treated as quid pro quo. I think that will wreck the sex for both parties involved.
”

You believe sex is a moral requirement, but you say that a woman should not be required to have sex with her husband. The state sanctions this argument as well with the agreement that rape can occur within a marriage.

Sex/security does not have to be treated directly as quid pro quo for the marriage contract to be validated (or not) by both parties though. If one party can abandon part of their contract “sometimes”, where-as the other party must still pay forth half of his assets and income, then is it really a contract?

Why then, can a man not “sometimes” abandon part of his contract by no longer subsidizing his wife’s desires via his labor?

AR
His was not the No True Scotsman assertion at all. He was stating none of the things you saw, he was not trying to debate definitions and the like. I cannot see how you got that. Are you serious? Pages of definitional debates rage here all the time. I agree it is tedious and a waste of time.

Tell us, what IS the pure date of mores to aspire to to be conservative and traditional? The answer is irrelevant, but you did raise the question, or beg it anyway.

No, no Empath. That’s a total mischaracterization. I said in my immediate follow-up comment tha the issue of marital rape is irrelevant, i.e. I said: “That has nothing to do with using sex as a reward-and-punishment tool.”

Others kept raising the issue and I responded. I will say that it’s pretty hard to let pass the notion that marital rape should not be recognized as a crime.

Just to clear up what I wrote earlier, which wasn’t complete I don’t think: not all women get a lot of money from divorce, of course. A lot do, and really sock it to their unfortunate husbands, but a lot don’t for whatever reason. Many of the poorest people in this country are single mothers who left their husband and took their kids with her but is now finding her new life isn’t quite as glamorous as she’d been led to believe it would be.

Do many women divorce expecting a big payday? I think that’s a reasonable assumption, just as it’s reasonable to think that a lot of men aren’t getting married because they don’t want to be wiped out by a divorce settlement.

Because, Danger, Sex is not a quid pro quo for joint ownership of marital assets. It’s a moral obligation because that’s what makes the marriage stronger but it’s not a quid pro quo.

The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage. So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck.

Now, it may be that you feel ill-used because you are hustling to bring in most of the income. But in most such cases, the quid pro quo you’ve probably struck is that she will be the primary caretaker of the house and the kids. And if you don’t like it (and I know this sounds snarky and I don’t mean it that way), maybe you should have struck a bargain that is more congenial to you, such as marrying someone who pulls more weight in terms of income generation.

Say you have a wife and husband. The wife is no longer attracted to her beta husband. He thus gets no sex at all. She wants divorce and he doesn’t. Therefore, if he files for neglect or abandonment or ‘alienation’, she gets what she wants and he gets stuck with divorce court that he doesn’t actually want. In other words, he actually wants to maintain his vows. However, what if he tries something different, what if he tries to get her sexually aroused? He goes to the gym, gets a haircut, gets better groomed and takes her out to a romantic dinner. Then they return home and he tries to be more dominant, to take control of the situation. If they have sex, she can either at the end say it was rape and that he forced her, or not. Depending on how she feels. The point though, is that any married man will probably not be able to save his marriage by being more dominant and taking control for fear of the law and his wife’s retribution. Therefore, by having laws like ‘marital rape’, the only avenue a man has to get sex with his wife, is to do everything she says, and then she can still decline and there is fuck all he can do about it, except divorce her. All domestic laws that interfere with marriage are relevant and can be used as a tool to punish.

These types of laws have firmly placed a woman in the driving seat of marriage, with little recourse for a man. Marriage 2.0 is slavery.

England has been a Christian country for, I suppose, over fifteen hundred years. The laws of marriage either are Christian or reflect Christian thinking, especially Paul who has a lot – and in my view – very sensible things to say about it – all that burning in the flesh.

It is equally the case as Lord Justice Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that proof of Rape is very hard to achieve – and that proof must as always be beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What never occured to Paul (I say) or Blackstone was that one could Rape ones wife, indeed I am prepared to go out on a limb and suggest that as long as they have been teaching Criminal law in England every first year law student was taught that Rape of ones spouse was impossible, and as such the concept of Marital Rape made as much sense as the concept of a being a Married Bachelor. Certainly that was what I was taught when I was a first year law student, and I was led to believe that that had always been the law (as I am sure it was).

In their infinite wisdom the learned Justices in the Court of Appeal decided sometime in the late eighties or early nineties that not only had that never been the law and that one could indeed Rape ones wife – thus it was not long (I speak from experience) that Feminist Lesbian Counsel and their Mangina Police Officers were enthusiastically prosecuting (on absolutely no evidence men for just that). Sex is no big deal – and frankly given England’s generous divorce laws surely the sensible thing is to Divorce in the PDA (as was) rather than waste state money in prosecuting a hapless Beta.

As I said to a married friend of mine only last week in the Pub – himself a victim when single of a threatened false-rape accustaion – the only way that a man can now be certain of avoiding a charge of Rape is to limit ones sexual activity to Prostitutes – for that is the inevitable consequence of such Judicial Misandry.

But I cheer it on (hell, I invented the concept). These men are doing necessary work by shielding the beta males from predatory sluts. Plus, the sluts are kept happy too.

Everybody wins, except the pastor, SoCons, and gold-diggers.

Cheering on may be too strong a metaphor–let’s call it golf-clapping.

Shielding the beta males? Come on, man! That there are sluts is true, and that they choose this themselves is also true (i.e., no PUA trickery; can’t con an honest [wo]man, etc.), but “shielding” them? Give me a break. That’s like saying dealers shield addicts from abusing prescription drugs. No: they shouldn’t be raiding our medicine cabinets for a high, but the solution is not to bring in dealers. What we want are slut-proof cabinets, and more ready discernment of sluts, to weed them out.

We used to send them to convents. That seems wise.

Church isn’t for everyone; just as hospitals are not. If a hospital (church) gets a hint that a person is there to abuse drugs (sluts)–illicit or prescription (PUA or beta)–then the hospital kicks them out for the good of everyone trying to heal, or be healed.

Spousal rape is difficult for the same reasons that any non-violent rape is – there is no proof, only ‘he said / she said’. The state taking ‘she said’ as the default proof is denying the man not only the right of being considered innocent until proven guilty it is also putting the burden of proof on the defendant – both of these contradict core concepts of American jurisprudence. I believe that rape should be a capital offense (specifically of the executable variety) because it can really only be proven if the woman has taken noticeable physical injuries and reports it in a timely manner, then they must prove that the potential rapist is the one who perpetrated the act. Also, credible witnesses would help to prove it, though it would beg the question as to why these witnesses didn’t shoot the perp or perps on the spot (in my state this is legal). Basically, the woman is going to go through a lot of pain and agony to get justice in this type of system. In this case, the only possible punishment that I can see as fitting the crime is death.

If there are no physical injuries or credible witnesses then all you really can prove is fornication, in which case either both parties or neither should be punished. Marital rape is even harder to prove without injuries and a timely filed complaint because it is the only relationship where sexual conduct between the two people should be *expected*.

When Gilder said that women civilize men, because men would roam around subsisting and hitting each other with sticks if women weren’t in the picture, it made sense. Take away women and civilization, and we *do* like fighting and killing things and seeing what’s over the next hill — the nomad lifestyle. Thanks to welfare and feminism, we have a whole class of urban nomads today who do nothing but drink, play video games, and commit minor crimes, because they’re able to live off their girlfriends’ food stamps and public housing.

But those men prove that it’s not women themselves who civilize men and spur them to hard work and innovation; it’s the opportunity to have and raise a family that does it. Take away the women, and men wouldn’t have the incentive to create cities and vacuum cleaners and cathedrals. But add in the women without a decent marriage contract and a few other things like private property rights, and men aren’t very civilized then either. Men civilize themselves — not to get laid, but to have a place to raise their families.

If they have sex, she can either at the end say it was rape and that he forced her, or not. Depending on how she feels.

FH, I think you raise a good point that everything really hangs on how the woman feels. Even in my own marriage, where we strive to follow a Biblical model, at any point I could change my mind (though I won’t) and there would be nothing my husband could do about it. Here is what he doesn’t have:
1. church-backed authority to pressure me to follow a Biblical marriage standard with regard to roles, responsibilities, and rights
2. legal right via the courts to force me to uphold the bargain I agreed to (staying married, for one)
3. legal right to coerce me to provide sexual access if I refuse and will not submit via any other means (i.e. seduction, flirtation, etc)
4. legal right to physically coerce a wayward wife to obedience if all other means of inspiring obedience fail

So, even in Biblical Christian marriages, women really only hand over the reigns of power because they choose to, not because they have to. It’s a precarious deal for men and is the best reason I can think of for Christian men to learn Game; he has no legal right to force her to uphold her end of the bargain, so he needs to be prepared to manipulate her into doing so if necessary. Given that the Bible tells us that women *will* seek to rule over their husbands, what else can men do but Game them? If the law stayed out of people’s marriages (no more ridiculously over-reaching domestic violence and marital rape laws), Game might not be necessary for the Christian man.

imnobody, a man is fucked either way. If he doesn’t earn enough, he’s not good enough for marriage. If he earns enough, he’s good enough for marriage but also, lo and behold, good enough for divorce. It’s a death trap.

There are plenty of poor’ men around, the Atlantic article tells us this. And while telling us this, it also tells us that the women have no interest in marrying such ‘Peter Pan’ boys. Women have no use for men after all. Men best pack up their shit and go play elsewhere.

Agreed. This is what makes being a man so hard in this age. Being single is the solution, although I fear old age. I guess groups of men will eventually be formed to live together and care about each other, the way priests do. But it is too early in the matriarchy for that.

FH – You are right as well. MGTOW is pretty much the only guaranteed safe option. If a man ‘needs’ a woman’s ‘company’ then he needs to become a PUA.

As a side note, has anyone noticed that as feminism increases in the US, homosexuality does as well, and becomes more open? Methinks that femis supporting the homosexual movement are further screwing themselves [heh].

imnobody, to be honest, I just fear the futility of it all. The idea of self-autonomy as the greatest overriding good, and how liberals are shaping the world in their disgusting image, leaves me in dread. Their world is pointless, it has no meaning outside achieving a ‘feel good’ sensation. Without something to live and die for, life is like an empty eggshell. Brittle and only good for disposing in the bin.

Agreed. I couldn’t say it better with my broken English. Liberals (which are in power) are injecting their nihilistic philosophy through all society. So the outcome is a suicidal society, which doesn’t want to have children and it will be swept away by the winds of history.

Sunshinemary
You have got it. Your last comment has summed it up and is why I’m an MRA. My son will not live in that world if i can help it in any way. It is also the reason I don’t care for game in marriage in a way. If I have to use game on a wife I just assume tell the bitch to get lost. That also takes care of the marital rape thing too. (later bitch) The removal of the sword of Damocles will have thde effect of game anyway.

SSM,
Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants? I like men plenty but I don’t like ’em that much.

The idea is balance DH, there has been no talk of ‘forceful sex’. If a wife is obligated, like her husband, to provide sex at reasonable intervals, there is no need for any force. This concept is too hard for you to swallow though, excuse the pun, so you should probably take your mouth full of of useless antics, dribbling from the sides and go kiss your husband.

Mohler’s article is shockingly, maddeningly bad theology. It doesn’t matter now, but I’m glad my (now ex-) wife didn’t read this while we were married. She was already so self-persuaded that she was entitled to withhold sex that no one could budge her — not pastors, not counselors, not even the eventual ultimatum that if she persisted in her sexual refusal (coupled with her insistence that her income was “her” money while my income was “our” money), I would move out (not divorce) for six months as a wake-up call. Her response? I’m sure you guessed it: she filed an ambush divorce (for the second and final time; yeah, I know, I was a sap) shortly after our 29th anniversary; told our oldest kids three weeks before she told me, contrary to repeated promises after the first divorce filing that she wouldn’t do that again; and commenced scorched earth litigation because she was furious and her Christian attorney led her to believe she could take me for astronomical alimony and child support. After 15 months, two different attorneys for her, and tens of thousands of dollars for our respective attorneys (mine did a great job, but couldn’t avoid the expense), she ended up settling for exactly the same child support I had proposed to pay if I had gone through with the separation, plus a small amount of alimony for a short time. In the process, she completely alienated our youngest son, so that her expectation of at least 50% custody of him became moot. Not having had the benefit of this site and the discussion of hypergamy, I was later shocked to find out that she had begun dating online a week after the divorce was final, within three weeks had zeroed in on a guy who lives 400 miles away, met him in person 3 months later, and got engaged 3 months after that (having only spent time with him every other weekend and a couple holidays). Somehow, she blithely ignores the facts that his denomination’s theology would have been anathema to her a year ago, that he has already been divorced twice (the second time one year before our divorce was final), and that he had at least one confirmed incident of physical violence against his second wife (in anger, he flipped her off the cot she was sleeping on, causing some bruising, ostensibly because she “provoked” him in some unspecified way). Instead, she is infatuated with his external spirituality — he is a lay pastor and has aspirations of missions-related work. So, sometime soon apparently (still less than one year since our divorce was final), she will marry him, move 400 miles away from her 16-year old son, and take our special needs daughter 400 miles away from me. She justifies the divorce based on my “unfaithfulness” to her in the form of sporadic pornography use during the marriage (an issue that pre-existed the marriage, as I imagine is true for most guys, but that was definitely not helped by her years of sexual refusal).

While I am not aware of any Christian authority figure endorsing her sexual refusal during the marriage or telling her pre-divorce that she had biblical grounds (on the contrary, I’m aware of multiple pastors and counselors telling her the opposite), once she pulled the trigger on the divorce anyone and everyone who might have had any authority over or influence on her headed for the hills. I have requested multiple church leaders and former mentors and friends of hers to step in; some have ignored me, others have listened but then said that she would not listen to them at this point; no one has even tried to pull her back. And there are plenty of girlfriends out there who are happy to root for her new “happiness” and to gush over her sugary, Christian-sounding Facebook posts about her spiritual growth.

I have three boys, ages 22, 20, and 16. I think they’ll likely marry even later than most, having observed their parents’ relationship (though with only partial knowledge of the conflicts). But at some point, I’ll need to warn them that the Body of Christ cannot be counted on to instruct their wives correctly about a biblical marriage, nor to step in to assist them if their wives decide at some point to bail out, contrary to her public vows. It may not be possible to have that conversation without being negative about their mother (which is a big no-no), but the dangers to their futures are too great not to have that conversation.

Any woman who will not guarantee that she will provide sex to a husband at reasonable intervals should not marry. Period. Full stop.

Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the ONLY benefit a man gets from marriage. Everything else for a married man is burden and obligation — burdens and obligations the state can legally compel him to fulfill, even if she no longer lives with him.

So if a man can’t get an agreement from a woman for regular sex at reasonable intervals, there’s nothing in marriage for him.

And any man who cannot get a guarantee from his prospective wife that she will provide regular sex at reasonable intervals should not marry that woman.

And he should tell his wife: “If you begin to withhold sex unreasonably, if you refuse my sexual advances unreasonably and repeatedly, I will construe your conduct as marital abandonment. I will consider your conduct to be a deliberate and willful breach of your marital obligations to me and will proceed accordingly.”

So if a man can’t get an agreement from a woman for regular sex at reasonable intervals, there’s nothing in marriage for him.

Ah, she can make agreements all day long. Who will compel her to live up to them? If she says she isn’t going to put out, his present-day choices are:
1. divorce her, with all the horribleness that entails
2. Cheat on her, which will eventually loop back into #1
2. rape her, and hope the physical evidence is too weak to prosecute and that the prosecutor isn’t a bitter feminist
3. Game her, and try to manipulate her into giving it up.

And any woman, including me and every woman who comments here, has the power to force his hand into one of these four choices at her whim.

Dalrock:
I used to work as a temp (for almost a year and a half) for a child support agency in a large city. I was data entery, so pretty much every case they did in the office went through me. Now things might have changed since then, but when I left they were just getting the ability to garnish licenses. What I experienced with the data I entered was this : most of the cases were from single mothers where the father was either unemployed, part-time employed or employed at minimum wage. Such men got very low orders, somewhere around 25 dollars per week. About 30 percent of the cases were middle class or above, usually earning at least 15 an hour. These men were getting socked with child support of at least 700 per month and, most commonly, support orders of around 1400 per month.

As for the question of what incents divorce, this study looked at it and found that child custody was what drove it. Children are the most valuable asset of the marriage. The ability to steal it (and be paid to do so) is a strong incentive, no matter how much the frivorce apologists claim otherwise.

2. rape her, and hope the physical evidence is too weak to prosecute and that the prosecutor isn’t a bitter feminist

It seems as though a man is screwed (heh) either way, since she can cry rape over anything with no evidence, so barring any physical evidence aside from his semen inside her (and since they are married, well, big whoop, that’s where it’s meant to go), physically overpowering her and gently raping her could be an option that seems no more risky for him than breathing.

As I wake up after taking the Red Pill, I am overwhelmed by one single question: Now what? I now see that marriage as defined in scripture and by millennia of civilizations is in the gutter. So what’s a single Christian guy to do? Chastity? Wild abandonment to unfettered Californication? Marriage to a princess?

“If you begin to withhold sex unreasonably, if you refuse my sexual advances unreasonably and repeatedly, I will construe your conduct as marital abandonment. I will consider your conduct to be a deliberate and willful breach of your marital obligations to me and will proceed accordingly.”

Wow. What woman could resist that kind of seduction? (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.)

Look, as I said above, I believe both sexes have an obligation to make things work in the bedroom. But it is an obligation that goes both ways. That means not just making your body available, gentlemen, but actually making an effort to be attractive. Throwing a bunch of legalese at your wife about what you unreasonable breaches of the marital contract is not exactly sexay.

Also a good option. “Honey, you need to know: no sexytime, no money. You’ll need to find a way to provide for yourself.”

That works so long as you are married. Post divorce the courts can step in and decide how hard he should work. I’ve never been in this situation but I would be strongly tempted to pick up the habit of greeting her in public with a smirk and a gentle punch on the bicep:

@imnobody
A girlfriend is not a wife. Girlfriends will swing naked from the chandeliers. You can leave a frigid girlfriend without spending much money to do so. Put a ring on one of your GFs’ fingers and it becomes she who can decide when, where, and how much.

Well, wives in the country I live are also very interested in sex (I know it from friends: I have lived here for 12 years so I know the field).

This is not to say that Latin American women are better than American women. They have other flaws that American women lack (but being frigid is not one of them). For example, they are more hypergamous and they automatically divorce when they have a couple of kids.

Western men who come here think they have come to the paradise and end up being divorced (although child support here is small and seeing your children is a no-problem – usually women complain because the father doesn’t want to see the kids). Other cultures, other customs.

This is why I am reluctant to put a ring on them (not because of sex, but because of other things).

@SSM“Put a ring on one of your GFs’ fingers and it becomes she who can decide when, where, and how much.”

Unfortunately that is reality. It is not consistent with Christian (sacramental) marriage, but it is what churchians believe and what is taught in modern churches. Fr. Lukewarm says nothing to oppose this.

Why would any man want to get married if it means his wife has the legal right to force him to spend his money against his will and physically coerce him to do what she wants? I like women plenty but I don’t like ‘em that much.

I’m glad to see everyone finally getting to the ugly elephant in the room. Dalrock once again a christian family man has lead a discussion that just plain lays out in full view the reason for MGTOW,the PUA, and the peter pan’s. The spearhead couldn’t have done a better job. You are a good man Dalrock
Now the conversation can go to action taken to correct this madness.

Yeah, he was. He’s stating that he, and only he, King, A. Matthew King, is the True Traditional Conservative. So I suggest he go and joust with the Darwin Catholic for a while, and let us know who the winner is. Then he can go challenge Bonald, and all the rest of the hair-splitters. Etc. and Etc.

He was stating none of the things you saw, he was not trying to debate definitions and the like. I cannot see how you got that. Are you serious? Pages of definitional debates rage here all the time. I agree it is tedious and a waste of time.

He’s taking issue with Dalrock, and insisting that rather than take on the content of what Driscoll, Mohler, etc. are saying, we should instead attack their “traditional conservative” credentials. That would be a total waste of time. Driscoll could play AMOG all day against “you’re not a REAL conservative, you’re not a REAL traditionalist” and not break a sweat.

It’s not form, it is the content. It’s not the picture, it’s the object. It’s not the symbol, it’s the referent. It’s the pedestalizing, vagina-worshipping, feminized, yes-dear, doormat mindset that is hurting men, no matter what it’s called.

Tell us, what IS the pure date of mores to aspire to to be conservative and traditional?

1. I don’t know.
2. I don’t care.
3. Arguing about what is a True TradCon Scotsman is a waste of time.
4. Solving a problem is more useful than arguing about ambiguous, fuzzy definitions like “conservative”.

The answer is irrelevant, but you did raise the question, or beg it anyway.

The answer is irrelevant, but you have to ask the question anyway? Say, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?

What is life like for an unmarried man in his 40s, 50s … 60s? Do you have never married single friends of such age groups? What is their take? I think a lot of men have a fear of the unknown. They don’t necessarily think marriage and family to be a good deal but they also don’t know what else exists and are fearful of losing out.

This Sunday our (Catholic) priest gave an amazingly un-sugarcoated sermon on Ephesians 5 (“Wives, be subject to your husbands”). Also, I am getting married soon to an awesome Catholic guy, and the book for our marriage class states that the husband is the head of the family and that spouses have a right to regular sex from each other. So far it’s all pretty no-nonsense, but our parish is more conservative than most, I’m afraid.

I’ve never gotten the whole Beauty and the Beast paradigm, aside from the erotic angle. Morally it makes at least a little sense (men commit more violent crimes), but for Christians…. don’t they remember that Eve fell first? We’re all a bunch of sinners, men and women.

Joshua,
You ask why should men get married if their wives can legally force them to, as you put it, spend money, i.e. split the marital estate upon divorce and provide support in certain circumstances?

I certainly would not imply that any man should get married, so you may be asking the wrong person. It’s a cost benefit/ risk reward analysis. Marriage (I find) is worthwhile despite the risks to my pocketbook if my husband walks because it means being part of a team to to manage our lives together. It means that you have a partner to manage your household, your kids, and your finances so you’re not doing everything on your own. It’s also a huge benefit to have someone take care of your house and kids while you concentrate on your career, if thats the arrangement you have, but that also means more of a risk that you’ll end up paying big bucks if she walks. The more independent and career minded she is, the more you’ll have to do house and kid duty, but the less likely you’ll end up,paying support in the event of divorce. But staying single or shacking up are fine options too, though you are less likely to wind up with a homemaker that way if that is what you are seeking.

Playing dumb.
Cheering on may be too strong a metaphor–let’s call it golf-clapping.

Shielding the beta males? Come on, man! That there are sluts is true, and that they choose this themselves is also true (i.e., no PUA trickery; can’t con an honest [wo]man, etc.), but “shielding” them? Give me a break. That’s like saying dealers shield addicts from abusing prescription drugs. No: they shouldn’t be raiding our medicine cabinets for a high, but the solution is not to bring in dealers. What we want are slut-proof cabinets, and more ready discernment of sluts, to weed them out.

Cane that looks like a man playing dumb if there ever was. i hope you don’t actually have a leadership position in a church some where. If your comments and responses to comments made are any indication you have a church that not only harbours sluts, but worship them as virtuous for being in church. The PUA that have come to your church to wear the pussies out (and assholes for the serious phreaks) of your worshipped sluts are doing the lords work occupying them hoes from the beta christian men you churchian are serving up to slaughter. Only a pussy worshipping churchian would even by mistake think TFH was even talking about a PUA shielding a slut,,,like from what, his own semen shooting into her mouth?
Gilligan has one one up these chuchian types, Gilligan was at leaste trying to help. But these guys have proudly buried their heads in the sand mouthed off some shit out of the bible and arrogantly refuse to get their hands dirty in the name of godliness.

@Greyghost
TFH asserted PUAs were shielding the betas from the sluts. I was arguing that this is not the case. Neither of us spoke of shielding sluts. The rest of your argumentative error falls from that one.

I have to operate in the light of Romans 3, and strive to not fall afoul of verse 8, in particular. You may not have such restraints.

CL, SunshineMary only (I am not discussing these issues here with any other women),

CL, that was a good point about why not just rape her, because she can charge you with rape after ordinary sex (not forcible) anyway. This is the inevitable result of illogical laws. It is the reason I suppose why the punishment for rape is less than that for murder, because otherwise a man might as well murder the woman he has raped. There is no risk of greater punishment. By the same logic, if a husband can be charged with rape after normal marital sex, there is no greater risk for him if he does rape her (unless he leaves bruises I suppose).

The problem with CL’s concept of “gentle rape” is that no man would really want to live with a woman he had raped. A man can’t do “gentle rape” and want or expect a relationship with the woman afterwards. At least, I can’t imagine it.

I am curious too about what SunshineMary means by reasonable physical coercion. Perhaps we should take this to her blog, but I am genuinely curious what this would cover.

Trad Cons act much like a drift sock; they aren’t anchored to a fixed position so they simply act as a drag against whatever the current direction of change is.

This is nonsensical on its face. A traditional conservative, insofar as he is traditional and conservative, cannot by definition “act … like a drift sock.” If he is “simply act[ing] as a drag against … the current direction of change,” rather than endeavoring to alter that direction back to traditional modes, he is not conservative; he is an accomplice of the change-agent. A Trad Con “stands athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!’” He doesn’t stand beside history waving it through like a matador.

How is standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” any different than a drift sock?

You really have to stop using the phrase “Trad Con.” In the first place, “Traditional conservative” is a redundancy; from whom are you trying to distinguish them? Non-traditional conservatives? For someone like me who is not familiar with the Dalrockosphere’s redefinition of the plain meaning of words, it is hard to follow you.

I’ll consider using a better term than traditional conservative as soon as someone proposes one*. I started off using Social Conservative, but switched to Trad Con fairly shortly thereafter. The term itself isn’t redundant though. There are different types of conservatives. I’m referring to those who want to conserve traditional values and culture. I’m not referring to economic or fiscal conservatives.

*My only requirements are that the term be generally understood so that the Trad Cons in question know I’m referring to them and readers generally understand who I’m talking about. Those Trad Cons who aren’t like that can help me out by ceasing to provide cover to the ones who are like that. At the very least, stop being more troubled that I’m calling them out than you are that they are that way in the first place.

flirtyintrovert, that is good news. There used to be a booklet sent to people interested in becoming Catholics here in Australia, maybe thirty years ago. Somehow I acquired a copy, despite being a “cradle Catholic”. That booklet stated that the husband is the head of the family, and explained that all communities need a head.

I expect the Church will speak more clearly on this in future, perhaps as the results of not doing so become more and more evident in social damage.

The Traditionalist (Latin Mass) priests are usually good on male headship. I suppose they know that this has been the traditional teaching over the centuries.

PUA are shielding betas from the sluts. As long as the carousel rider has a seat(or dick) on the carousel she will not be deceiving a game less beta chump into marrying her. That is how it is. Teach those boys the truth or introduce your betas to the manosphere. Sooner or later the PUA will drop that used up slut and your boys won’t be able to handle it. One more thing your boys learn some game or just plain have an understanding of female nature and family law they may be able to forgo the sluts and peel off a 17 to 19 year old daughter of a churchian member before she gets on the carousel.

@sunshinemary wrote.
“…but after we became Christians, I appointed myself the judge of his spiritual fervor and moral failings, and he let me do so because he thought I was more spiritually mature. For any couple no longer wishing to have a sex life, I can recommend this approach; I was nicely on my way to becoming a frigid bitch.”

Wow. Mirror image of my marriage. Only she wasn’t nicely on her way. Train pulled into the station and she was at the espresso bar. Somehow we got into churchian relationships that seemed to exalt the feminine and undercut the masculine, that is except the masculine that the women defined as good. Reading the story at the link about women being more ethical (or also, “spiritual”) than men, I really saw how this played out in our couple’s counseling. She knew just how too talk and come out on top, leaving me to be the poor wretch to try and make her feel loved.

I am glad a woman such as yourself is blogging about this kind of stuff.

One more thing Cane your boys aren’t addicts they are betas the baddest dudes america’s got. We have a duty to protect and honor them. The constitution written out of genesis in the bible was written to do just that. Worked pretty well until we started worshipping women.

Well, about the life for an unmarried man in his 40s, it is my life. I’m in my early 40s. Mostly devoted to work. With LTRs (serial monogamy), but nothing seems to stick.

Do you have never married single friends of such age groups?

In the country I was born and in the country I live, I don’t know anybody with these characteristics that is not gay. There are divorced people, sure, but they have their kids.

What is their take? I think a lot of men have a fear of the unknown.

I have. 2011 was an annus horribilis for me. I have two surgeries in the back. Since then, I have pain. I have a fear of being alone in my old age.

They don’t necessarily think marriage and family to be a good deal but they also don’t know what else exists and are fearful of losing out.

That’s me! The thing is that there is no other thing. If you want companionship in middle age, you have to get married. Modern society does not give you any alternatives. I am lucky, though, I have two sisters and a big extended family, so, when I feel really alone, I’ll move close to them.

OK, CL, I shall repeat my comment at your blog. The physical coercion thing came up at a couple of other blogs too, and I can provide citations. I would be interested in comments from women I can trust not to become hysterical.

coffecrazed – I advise against marital counseling, even with Christian counselors, if you can avoid it. We tried it; it was useless and only served to turn me into more of a controlling shrew because I’m pretty good at running verbal circles around people. The counselor became just one more person for me to manipulate, and I had a storehouse full of sympathy-getting ploys including but not limited to the good old verbal abuse accusation. Of course, my husband’s response of, “I’m not verbally abusive! She really is a bitch” didn’t go over well with the therapist.

DC – let us discuss coercion elsewhere. CL’s blog is good. I am trying not to say inflammatory things on blogs where I have no chance of getting a delete if I have poster’s regret five minutes later. We can also discuss it on my last post,Sunday Supplications: I see rapists everywhere, Church edition if anyone wishes.

CoffeeCrazed, I am not a particularly aggressive man at all, but there is one thing that unfailingly infuriates me, and that is people interfering in my family without permission. The mistake that a man makes in allowing any kind of “marriage counsellor” into his marriage, and the reason why I would never do this, is that it is giving another person authority in your household that they have no right to. I might allow a parish priest to intervene to some limited extent. For example, the parish priest and I had a disagreement, at arms’s length, about whether my daughter should be allowed to be an altar girl. I had no problem with his expressing an opinion, although my decision (that she should not serve at the altar) stood.

The idea that I would allow some man, or worse, woman to purport to tell me how to relate to my wife is ridiculous.

Statistics are your friend as well as your enemy.
1-2 years ago, there was a publicized study that claimed that the average African-American woman held a net worth of $5. Immediately, black women jumped onto the internet with posts like, “I’m an engineer and I earn six figures. How *dare* the government claim that black women are poor!”/”I’m a subway conductor/manager and I earn $68K a year! Why is the government claiming that all black women are poor!?”/”I’m a part-time scripper *and* I do hair! I’m worth a *lot* more than $5, trust me!”
When confronted with the entire study (noting that married, non-working black women were tabulated with a personal net worth of $0, and that the cost of living for public assistance- dependent black women was subtracted from the total earnings of black women prior to finding the average), they calmed down. Interestingly enough, the amount of black women who began to (publicly) rail against welfare rose as well.

Now, as partially mentioned by Clarence (on the other thread), the averages for CS payments are tabulated in the same manner as the average net worth of black women.
Here’s the deal. By military standards (re: post-divorce maintenance, AKA cash and prizes), the dependant spouse can receive up to 25% of the providing spouse’s pre-tax income in Child Support and up to 19% of the provider’s pre-tax income in alimony. This means that a military member (if acting as the sole provider) can receive less than 35% of their actual pay per month.
Eg. Sgt Snuffy earns $1000/check. After 20% ($200) removed in taxes, Sgt Snuffy pays out another $190 for alimony and $250 per check in child support. Sgt Snuffy receives a check for $360 every two weeks, more or less. If it wasn’t for the housing and food allowance, Sgt Snuffy could be homeless.

Now, let’s get down to business.

1. Child support rates (with the exception of military/government employees) depend on the state. For most of the states in the Union, CS rates are capped at 15% of the father’s/provider’s pre-tax income. However, there are about a dozen states in which CS can be assigned at a rate as high as 35% of the provider’s/non-custodial parent’s pre-tax income (note: 10% higher than the amount of money that the federal government sees fit to charge.) Here’s the kicker: the states with the highest percentages of withdrawable CS are California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts. Those five states hold literally 33% of America’s population (40 million citizens, 15 to 20 million in each of the other four states.). For all intents and purposes, there are about 20 million American men who have to ask themselves, “Is getting married *really* worth the risk?” There are millions of children who grow up watching (their own or someone else’s) Daddy being taken to the cleaners. And, just in case you didn’t notice, four of those states produce 25% of all of America’s profit as well.

2. In case you didn’t know, divorce is mostly a middle-middle to lower socioeconomic phenomenon. Even among the higher classes, a significant percentage of their divorces are committed by the “upwardly mobile”. To be clear-in America, *poor people* with *lower moral standards* make up the majority of divorces. Likewise, the majority of OOW births in America are among the same socioeconomic classes. And, obviously, the majority of the fathers/hook-up partners/guys who met the mother while drunk or high are also poor to middle class (because rich men rarely travel in the same circles as poorer women, and they give their real names and contact information to the “lower class” women with whom they *are willing to consort with* very rarely. Now, this part will have to be written as blatantly as possible, to make sure that you understand it clearly.

Why would you expect CS amounts to average higher than $350/month per parent?
As with the example of the average net worth of African-American women, you are committing an apex fallacy error. You’re looking at CS payments from celebrities, high-powered businessmen, trust fund babies and investors, then making disparaging comments about the inability of franchise managers or Tilt-A-Whirl operators or bus drivers to “Man Up”. For every $100,000+/year earning man, there’s 7 men who earn half as much as him (4 of whom are essentially “working poor”.) For every $100,000+/year earning man who gets divorced, there are at least a dozen <$50,000/year earning men who get divorced (and who can and often do find themselves living in their friends'/parents' houses to make ends meet after paying their alimony and CS.) For every $100,000/year earning man who knocks some chick up, there are dozens of <$50,000/year men who learn that their current partner isn't really using birth control. Or who meets a woman with a ticking biological clock and after she buys a few beers…, etc. And the common denominator in all of those conceptions is simple: the woman chose that specific man, with his lower earning capacity to be the father.

SHE MADE THAT CHOICE. There are very few men in America who forcibly impregnate women. Roving “rape gangs” have never existed in this country. Even PUAs, for all of their limited numbers, have never made it a primary, secondary or even tertiary option for their ilk to forcibly seduce and impregnate women. IT. DOESN’T. HAPPEN.

If women want to live lives in which they can expect to receive higher levels of CS, they can make some changes in their lives. They can do things like:

Stay married longer. Divorce prior to the ten year mark, CS is capped at a lower rate. Also, all but the most liberal states will assume that the woman would be ready to go back to work (something that tends to lower the man’s CS burden.)

Not allow strangers to have unprotected sex with them on the first date (as has been noted, rape-triggered abortions account for 3.3% of all abortions in America. Even if we assume that the feminist shibboleth of “200,000 women are raped every year” is true, and we assume that every rape results in pregnancy, it wouldn’t account for the other 750,000+ abortions per year.)

Not get knocked up by band members, high school crushes, other students, “Bob from the mail room with the weed connection”, “he’s really a cool guy”, etc. It’s not that hard to avoid getting pregnant or staying pregnant if you really don’t want to be pregnant. As has been noted by large swaths of Manosphere readers, women tend to find it very easy to avoid getting pregnant or staying pregnant by guys who they don’t find attractive. If a woman can only find sexual attraction among lowlifes, deviants and assorted ne’ER-do-wells, she’s going to find it very difficult to get anything more than $500/month out of him. This isn’t rocket science, you aren’t going to get a $1,000+ CS check from a guy who earns $15/hour as the night manager at McDonald’s, no matter how “cool he is, like, when you really get to know him.”

“That’s me! The thing is that there is no other thing. If you want companionship in middle age, you have to get married. Modern society does not give you any alternatives. I am lucky, though, I have two sisters and a big extended family, so, when I feel really alone, I’ll move close to them.”

– Can’t you get companionship from other men? People you meet from hobbies or from your work for example? And surely there are other ways to find female companionship besides marriage? Is the problem of companionship in old age only a problem for men or for women (natural social creatures) too?

– I suppose things are different for your generation and for the country you live in. Everyone just got married like you say. But I think there would be a LOT of single people for my generation. I think a man without the responsibility and burden of supporting a family would have a lot of free time and resources to pursue all sorts of interests and entertainment opportunities. But I do wish I knew what it is like living at that age.

– I don’t really trust most old people from this country. They together with women seem to conspire to do what is in the worst interest of young men. So it is very difficult to talk frankly about these issues and have my many questions answered. But I greatly respect your opinion and thank you for sharing your experiences and wisdom.

I been wondering where you were for the past few days. I guess you were working on this. This essay is truly gifted thought and is one of the most powerful pieces you have ever written. Dalrock, you just might be one of the most dangerous men in America. Your ability to associate data, other writing, opinions from various sources, empirical observations from society, and then to produce a piece of writing like this is quite remarkable. You are one of the best examples of PostModernist possibility, a fucking Martin Luther of our age.

Deti said: Any woman who will not guarantee that she will provide sex to a husband at reasonable intervals should not marry. Period. Full stop.

Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the ONLY benefit a man gets from marriage. Everything else for a married man is burden and obligation — burdens and obligations the state can legally compel him to fulfill, even if she no longer lives with him.

So if a man can’t get an agreement from a woman for regular sex at reasonable intervals, there’s nothing in marriage for him.

———————————————————————-

While I agree that women are obligated to provide sex at regular intervals I do not understand why this is the only benefit of marriage for a man.

I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?

The difference is one is a question and one is a statement. If my understanding of his comment is poor he has the opportunity to correct me. If it isn’t then he can confirm. Or he can ignore me entirely if that is his preference. You are grasping at straws to find something to complain about.

For me, companionship is important as well as sex. And sex is not just the sex act, but also the fun of living with someone who is close to you as a spouse but intriguingly different. Actual sex is just a small part of a much broader sexuality.

I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing. I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him. Likewise, I think my husband would like to be valued beyond his usefulness to me.

Say, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?
—————————————————
I was…..but alas, no tenure, the cry-sis got me , now Im a Pappa John’s driver, and the brief intellectual exchanges across front door thresholds leave me craving what I can only find here.

“The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage. So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck. ”

Harlot, you are only proving my point. When you say “Whatever you each bring in during the marriage”, you must also include the sexual release that the woman brings to the table within m arriage. That is VERY important to a man, much more so than women.

Likewise, it is FAR more important to a woman that a man bring in assets (or the ability to secure assets), security and safety.

So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?

Your answer about “that was the contract” is just another way of saying “The State says it is so”..

If women have the right to pull away the commodity they bring to marriage, should men not have the same right?

Fitz,
I understand what you’re saying, but they refuse to wake up to reality or they do not really talk to the men they ask to “man up.” I think they won’t associate with those men or cherry pick the groups.

Rock Throwing Peasant (writes) “I understand what you’re saying, but they refuse to wake up to reality or they do not really talk to the men they ask to “man up.” I think they won’t associate with those men or cherry pick the groups.”

Yes: its extremely frustrating…it dovetails with “Churchananity” – and strokes the vanity of their old school patriarchal impulses.. Traditionalists like Bill Bennett & Kay Simon Horowitz who support marriage have yet to confront the new reality..

You cannot invoke Male responsibility in this day and age without first addressing female responsibility.. Its not enough to simply talk about poor woman’s troubles (Kay Simon) and then leap over to male responsibility. The woman’s responsibilities & culpability for her own situation is buried in sympathy for woman/children/”the poor” – and men are treated as “tough it up & man up” situation…..

This is the current paradigm that traditionalists seem locked into – The problems of upper-class marriages are non-existent..

This is also driven by a fear of keeping the feminist narrative for woman open… continue to pursue economic independence… colege advanced degree’s… and even sexual liceance. WHY? -because we dont want to get in an argument with are own daughters/young woman/feminists…

In short…These traditionalists want to nibble around the edges or seek to pick what looks like low hanging fruit…without & before confronting the source of the problem wich is the sexual revolution and it sexual liceance and feminism and its idea of female economic indepedence..

No. I’m saying that most men don’t get that from their marriages; nor is it a benefit that I could not get somewhere else.

I have a couple of best friends from college. They being men, sex with and marriage to them is out of the question. They are compatriots extraordinaire, though.

The best thing about marriage is the sex. It is as David Collard said, a broader sexuality than simply the sex act. Men appreciate their wives sexually. I find many women physically, even sexually attractive, but laws, my own conscience and simple logistics dictate I can’t appreciate all of them.

And you and DH keep harping about me seeing marriage as a contractual exchange of goods and services. At bottom it is that. How long would you put up with your husbands not carrying their ends of the bargain? Not very long at all, I would posit. It makes my head spin to see how fast some women divorce their husbands for the slightest of transgressions.

While you are absolutely right, women will have a very difficult time accepting what you are saying about a marriage and it’s benefits. When broken down to the bare bones, as you have done, it paints women as prostitutes and men as John’s. It is very hard for women to see something broken down so barely and then remember that the man enters the marriage in a state of love as well. Rational thought tends to go by the ways side the minute a woman thinks she might be using her husband as a resource (of course he is) and that he is using her specifically for sex. Our brains reel against this, especially when women have been taught that respect is their right and they are guaranteed to receive it.

Fitz, I’m not sure no one wants to take them on. I think the loudest voices weren’t ridden out of town by the largely female congregations. They survived by placating and never shunning.

I find it frustrating because, while I don’t think that generation purposefully tried to raise the men and women of today, they do deliberately stand in the way of fixing the problem. More maddening is that they roar against the very people who are trying to wake the world up to the problems caused.

They raised their children to be “nice” and to be empowered. They cannot admit that parenting style, mixed with the toxic forces at play in our society, caused a lot of the problems. When people try to get them back to more honest reading of Scripture or a more honest understanding of humanity, they rally with their enemies to drive them from the conversation.

Let’s say Mrs. deti decides she will not have sex with me anymore. She decides that her companionship is sufficient to sustain our marriage. Besides, sex is a chore, and she just doesn’t get much out of it. And by the way, she will not hold up her end of the bargain, but I am expected to continue working.

How long do you think this marriage will last?

Reverse it now.

Let’s say I decide I will quit my job. I will not work or earn money anymore. I have decided that my companionship to Mrs. deti is sufficient to sustain our marriage. Besides, work is a chore, and I just don’t get much out of it. And by the way, I will not hold up my end of the bargain, but she is still expected to cook, clean, and service me sexually.

“They raised their children to be “nice” and to be empowered. They cannot admit that parenting style, mixed with the toxic forces at play in our society, caused a lot of the problems”

Very much so.. Two phenomena come to mind.
#1. “never hit a woman” – Became always defer to woman and shield them from the harsh realities of life..(even their own decision!!) – And so when your daughter is a slut and greedy career woman you don’t confront her, you actually facilitate her behavior.

#2. Princess – must always get what she want.. She “wants” what feminism told her to want so…You have to be supportive and facilitate her young naivete career ambitions and the sexual licence that goes with a youth spent outside of marriage & child rearing…Otherwise your not being a good man or Father toward your young princess..

#3. (This one is not often discussed) That generation of men are not comfortable talking about sex…and certainly not when it comes to their own daughters…

Sexual Liberation caught that generation flatfooted in its abruptness and tone surrounding sex. A delicate matter were Christians were used to tolerating a level of hypocrisy (There engaged or going steady and probably having sex…but that’s O.K. because its leading to marriage)

The line between implicitly condoning fornication of this caliber – (i.e. – its marriage directed) as apposed to the 10-15 years of cock carousel is hard to delineate and become fuzzy fast throughout the 70’s and 80’s. So Dad ended up just crossing his fingers when it came to his daughters behavior and hoping her decisions would lead to a stable marriage.

While I agree that women are obligated to provide sex at regular intervals I do not understand why this is the only benefit of marriage for a man.

I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?

Keep in mind that you and your husband made an agreement that neither can go outside the marriage for sex. So if you won’t have sex with him, you are telling him (not really you, but the hypothetical sex denying wife in the discussion):

I don’t care about you, taking care of your needs is a bother to me. I don’t love you enough for that.

Now, consider the quality of the companionship in that marriage. How much is he going to enjoy spending time with a woman who sends him that message loud and clear every day?

I blame his age group cohort of pre feminist who have actual “wives” (ala Bill Bennit) and may also be Alpha’s. They were raised to “open doors for woman” and control the bad alpha’s.

I see it more as a question of emphasis than Scriptural error.

I’m not sure I understand your defense of Dr. Mohler here. Are you saying that this very learned man who has taken on the task of educating future pastors doesn’t know that he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension? Or are you saying he knows he is turning each piece of Scripture he cites upside down, but he has a really good reason for wanting to do so? I don’t see a third option, but perhaps I’m missing something.

You cannot invoke Male responsibility in this day and age without first addressing female responsibility.

deti wrote:

It makes my head spin to see how fast some women divorce their husbands for the slightest of transgressions.

Absolutely no one in the church is talking about female responsibility to deal with the divorce epidemic. For all the man-up exhortations we’ve heard, how many are telling women to live up to their end of the bargain? Zero. It’s true – many women tend to bail when it gets tough. I wonder if it would be rude of me to start saying that to acquaintances? Maybe with a hint of sarcasm: “You were unhappy with some aspect of your husband, so you left him? Neat. Now, my husband and I didn’t write any escape clauses into our wedding vows. Good thinking on your part to do that.”

Sexual Liberation caught that generation flatfooted in its abruptness and tone surrounding sex. A delicate matter were Christians were used to tolerating a level of hypocrisy (There engaged or going steady and probably having sex…but that’s O.K. because its leading to marriage)

The line between implicitly condoning fornication of this caliber – (i.e. – its marriage directed) as apposed to the 10-15 years of cock carousel is hard to delineate and become fuzzy fast throughout the 70′s and 80′s. So Dad ended up just crossing his fingers when it came to his daughters behavior and hoping her decisions would lead to a stable marriage.

This is very much it. “It’s ok because they are going to get married anyway” quickly morphs into “You shouldn’t expect her to marry the wrong man just because she already had sex with him. Thank goodness she found out he wasn’t the right one before marriage, thereby preventing future divorce.” There is no logical barrier from the one to the other. When the premarital sex is happening one can make a plausible case that the wedding is merely a formality. When one of them gets bored or thinks they can get a better deal, it is even easier to suddenly remember that they aren’t actually married, they are just boyfriend and girlfriend.

The other part of it is a desire to avoid any real introspection on their (our) own actions, especially the mothers who happened to have an extra “college boyfriend” or three in the mix before she met the man she ultimately married. To be fair to the women, the binary nature of the “good girl”/”slut” paradigm is brutal here, and not something they want to see themselves on the wrong side of the line on. The husband understands this and likely has some kind of past of his own. If the choice is move the line or have the mother lose her “good girl” status, the choice is obvious.

The other part of it is a desire to avoid any real introspection on their (our) own actions, especially the mothers who happened to have an extra “college boyfriend” or three in the mix before she met the man she ultimately married. To be fair to the women, the binary nature of the “good girl”/”slut” paradigm is brutal here, and not something they want to see themselves on the wrong side of the line on. The husband understands this and likely has some kind of past of his own. If the choice is move the line or have the mother lose her “good girl” status, the choice is obvious

See, now this is why I wanted a firm definition a couple weeks ago about the word “slut”. I guess I wanted everyone to admit that there really is a binary nature of good girl/slut with a clear demarcation line of N>1. There is no way of doing a better job of educating the next generation if we are unwilling to say the hard truth (or admit the hard truth about ourselves).

Dalrock (writes) “I’m not sure I understand your defense of Dr. Mohler here. Are you saying that this very learned man who has taken on the task of educating future pastors doesn’t know that he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension? Or are you saying he knows he is turning each piece of Scripture he cites upside down, but he has a really good reason for wanting to do so? I don’t see a third option, but perhaps I’m missing something.

I am trying to say that because he is stuck in an age & mindset that is pre-feminist he has allowed these prejudices to accumulate and has not addressed current realities.

I see this all the time.. They are use to and comfortable chastising men for un-Christian behavior but are uncomfortable chastising women… Let 40 years of feminism make them even more gun shy and you end up with a almost purely anti-male emphasis.

This ENDS-UP or culminates in the misreading of scripture rather than being predicated in it.

If they had a better view of the current realities – of just how wild woman have become…they would (perhaps) be able to address the disparity…But they are “stuck in the 50’s” for reasons outlined above.

Its not much of an apology for Mr. Mohler its more like sympathy…although I have little to feel for him and this ilk. For instance I read Kay Simon Horowitz “manning-up” and felt that to be woefully one sided.

If all the men in America somehow got their act together despite the refusal of woman to get behind them…and became perfect gentleman and husband material they would still be met with woman who were imprinted with multiple partners, self centered in terms of personal fulfillment within marriage & unprepared for motherhood or being a supportive and caring wife.

This is the great frontier that traditionalist are still not willing to confront.

I think you should e-mail Dr. Mohler with a link to your article. I recently had this same discussion with my Parish Priest and found him to be very receptive.. We left with the understanding that he should research more and discuss more with males about our current woe’s. That this was to be done with an eye towards eventually addressing females behavior and decision making. One day perhaps it will make its way into programs and Sunday Homilies.

If they had a better view of the current realities – of just how wild woman have become…they would (perhaps) be able to address the disparity…But they are “stuck in the 50′s” for reasons outlined above.

You’re lying to yourself as surely as the Bennett’s and Moehler’s do. They don’t read the NYT? They don’t read The Atlantic? They don’t read the Bible? They are not “stuck in the 50s”. They REFUSE to see the devastation in front of them; just as you are refusing to admit they do this. They remain in the 50s because they choose to idolize themselves and their upbringings; just as surely as lefty boomers idolize their Woodstock antics.

You’re not speaking of godly men caught in a trap, but vain men choosing a prison of the mind.

“he happened to read every piece of Scripture he cites backwards, because his feminist wife has taken over his brain and removed all capability for reading comprehension?”

It wasn’t his feminist wife, it was his pre-feminist mother.

That’s the red pill for those wanting to go back to Christian headship. Women have always owned the moral (and thus the part of religion that speaks to morals) sphere, it’s just that they used to be more covert about it and used that influence in a way that helped build up civilization, rather than tearing it down as they are now.

Fitz, I think it’s so easy for these men to pander to women and place the blame on men, as they already have families with their wives and therefore their outlook and advise is screwed towards promoting what worked for them and not current reality. Their wives had no partners before marriage, or very few, therefore they cannot have the understanding that other younger men have because they never spent time immersed in the sick hook-up culture.

To a large extent, they and their families are probably insulated from the extreme hook-up culture found at most Universities and this further erodes their ability to rationalise the behaviour of men towards women. It would be interesting to note where Mark Driscoll and Dr Mohler and others of their type live in America. Probably red States, which are mostly conservative in thought and deed. Maybe when their daughters turn 30 with no men on the horizons, they might begin to understand…

While I agree that women are obligated to provide sex at regular intervals I do not understand why this is the only benefit of marriage for a man.

I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?
———————————————————————————————–
Inserting the word ONLY is a cheap trick, one women seem unusually prone to. If you wish to insert the word ONLY, then add the word UNIQUE after it, it is the ONLY UNIQUE benefit of marriage.

Of course your husband said the main benefit is companionship. He has a whole world paradigm constructed to reinforce his saying that, and not just a little bit of fear of your reprisal. This is basic, it fits the man bad woman good as a subset …..sex bad companionship good in a relative sense sex is not to be treated as virtuous as companionship.

Just look at Barbara Rainy in my post above stating the biggest gift her hubby ever gave was to tell her he didnt care if they ever had sex again he just loved who she is.

Tell me, someone, anyone……why is that such a wonderful thing?
Why is that sentiment such a perceived pearl?

Sexuality defines our relations with women. Sex is the deal breaker, without it a woman becomes your mother or sister.

Sex is the most integral part of an LTR. If it is established from the outset that a woman’s sexuality is a conditional reward for desired behavior from a man rather than a mutual experience based on mutually passionate desire, this LTR becomes fundamentally compromised because his first act of that LTR is capitulating to her terms for sex.

Sex is the deal breaker, but in my pointing it out I run the risk of coming across as “shallow” or “superficial.” It’s important, but it shouldn’t be that important, right?

Wrong. It is THAT important. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

As a man, if you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person?

You could have children together through insemination and she would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

Remember this sexless state doesn’t come after having had sex before (due to an injury or disability), it’s a pre-condition for the relationship and you cannot seek sexual release by any other avenue.

This is how important sex is. People (christians in particular) tend to think of love as coming in different varieties and colors – platonic, fraternal, familial, erotic, agape, etc. All of this is nonsense. Love is love, it’s how it’s expressed that’s different. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister. Sex can be an expression of love or it can be an act of recreation, but it is always a prerequisite for an intersexual relationship.

It’s time we all stopped deemphasizing the importance of sex and accept it for what it is. Every time we think we’re taking some moral high-road by saying it’s superficial or shallow to place such importance on sex, we only do a disservice to ourselves and our lovers. We’re only screwing ourselves by thinking that we’re in some way above sexuality in some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be “above sex” anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.

empathologicalismSay, are you moonlighting as a neo-re-deconstructionist lecturer of post-modernist literature, at some Enormous State U?
—————————————————I was…..but alas, no tenure, the cry-sis got me , now Im a Pappa John’s driver, and the brief intellectual exchanges across front door thresholds leave me craving what I can only find here.

I completely understand. On the one hand, you could restrict your deliveries only to those zip codes known to contain tenured faculty, but on the other hand given that they are all lousy tippers it would not be financially worth the trouble.

Perhaps we should start a new pizza company; Camus’ Pizza, with a motto “The Stranger delivers”. Or perhaps not…

“I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing. I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him. Likewise, I think my husband would like to be valued beyond his usefulness to me.”

Agreed.

Does going beyond imply abandoning the usefulness or retaining it while adding something more?

some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be “above sex” anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.
——————————————————————————-
This is what men do. They try to pull the ole Im not like those other guys trick, because as a teen, at least in my generation, that was a line that worked sometimes. The gal lifted off the back seat of the car to remove the undergarment because I said I was not like the other guys….I just ended up getting the same thing.
Lots of men never grew out of the urge to claim to not be like other guys.
Now in middle age they will do it for the simple approval of a random woman on a blog site, in lieu of sex.
As an aside, that manifests in many different ways, not just how they comport with women.

“Namae nanka,
Same goes for you. I am not the one saying men marry women “just for” the uterus and vagina. I am saying the opposite.”

Opposite means what exactly? What do other things have to do with marriage as a necessity?

“Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants?”

Cruelty used to be grounds for divorce. Assault in marriage wasn’t tolerated, domestic violence wasn’t taken lightly, but no one was hysterical and propagandist(oh noes patriarchy, run for your lives) about it like feminists.
Marriage ddidn’t confer the right on husband to assault his wife for sex, but that her wife signs away “against her will”. If she doesn’t want to continue that arrangement, she shouldn’t have got into it in the first place. And she should leave of her own accord.
Why do you keep lying again and again DH? Or why do you keep believing in feminist history?

As for sex being a quid pro quo, don’t really get why men shouldn’t be the ones getting paid, after all it’s not like women can control the monthly discharge from their vaginas let alone giving something away in the act of sex.
And that’s why there was a time when prostitutes got the punished for swindling a man out of his hard earned money, before the feminists raised hue and cry about it. Now the flimsy argument of “poor women selling their bodies” is used in feministan Sweden to criminalize men while letting women go free.

“The contract you enter into in marriage is for joint ownership of whatever you each bring in during the marriage.”

No it’s not you moron. Feminists fought for the Married Women’s property rights, look above, I gave that link in my first post.
Before that they would tell you that women were property of their husbands.

“By the Married Women’s Property Acts a woman has complete control over all property acquired or inherited by her in any way, free from any claim on the part of her husband. “

The suffragete’s husband went to prison because she wouldn’t pay the taxes on her income, where was the joint ownership exactly?

Similar would be the child custody laws. Today’s feminists would tell you that patriarchy gave away children to women because they were the primary caretakers, but the reality is that a feminist got it changed from default father custody in the first place.

So if your wife earns a nice fat paycheck, or inherits a house, or wins Megabucks, half of that belongs to you because that’s the deal you struck.

LOL and it would get changed once it becomes a losing proposition for many women. Look at Massachusetts alimony law change. All this was in the first post’s link.

primary caretaker of the house and the kids

gee, I don’t know how many housewives come as plubmer, electrician, construction-worker combined into one. Nor does one see nanny-certificates on most.

maybe you should have struck a bargain that is more congenial to you

precisely, once you realize that the law and women’s natures makes such bargains impossible, you change the law. Despite feminists screaming bloody murder, and women’s “nyah nyah”ing.

—————–

“I agree with DH that a contractual marriage for the purpose of exchanging goods and services is unappealing.”

unappealing to whom? And there hasn’t been an exchange for a long time, it’s been men giving and women taking. Once it reverses, it’s oppression time again, laws must be changed, patriarchy must be overthrown!

“I asked my husband and he said the main benefit is companionship. Deti- Are you saying that companionship is a burden?”

His main benefit is companionship, and yours? And what exactly does marriage do to make you his companion? Your peace of mind? Hospital visitation rights?

“Yet, despite this wreckage, she *likes* feminism. She could be a poster-woman for why young girls should not touch feminism with a 10-foot pole, but she nonetheless *likes* feminism…”

It’s like I said, she is either stupid or disingenuous. Like most of the brainwashed idiots who call themselves feminists she keeps babbling on how marriage means this and that, while not seeing that it reduces the whole concept to ruins. Which is what the real feminists wanted and in which they have succeeded.

DalrockThis is very much it. “It’s ok because they are going to get married anyway” quickly morphs into “You shouldn’t expect her to marry the wrong man just because she already had sex with him. Thank goodness she found out he wasn’t the right one before marriage, thereby preventing future divorce.” There is no logical barrier from the one to the other. When the premarital sex is happening one can make a plausible case that the wedding is merely a formality. When one of them gets bored or thinks they can get a better deal, it is even easier to suddenly remember that they aren’t actually married, they are just boyfriend and girlfriend.

This leads to the observation that there is no bright line for women not to cross, in the mainstream culture anymore. I pointed out a while back in a different comment stream that women who go to college as virgins are pressured to “get rid of it”, “get it over with” ASAP. Outside of religious subgroups, that bright line is seen as liberation. Once she’s done that, there’s no more bright lines visible. It’s all fuzzy / grey area, until some really high partner count is reached or so egregious Girls Gone Wild moment happens that goes viral on the internet. Then she’s suddenly transitioned to ‘slut”, but there was no one single point all the way back to first sex that would have been the “If I cross this line, I’m a slut” moment. This partly accounts for the sudden fury that will arise from any HUSsy should a man opine that, well, for him a partner count of N = slut, where N is equal to or less than the HUSsy in question. A woman with a partner count of 5 is not going to like being told she’s a slut, because back when she was practicing the preferred female form of promiscuity – serial polyandry – nobody told her this. Shucks, all her friends agreed that they were not sluts, so how dare any man retroactively pin that scarlet S on her? No, the process has to be a one-way one: women get to decide what “slutty” is, and therefore when to stop riding the carousel, and men better be ready to Man Up on command.

Prudence would dictate that women therefore should be extra careful, and some of them are, but the dominant culture sneers at prudence. There’s a real slippery slope here that is gradual enough that it looks almost level, at first. There’s no easy way to tell a young woman that men’s opinions will matter to her in 10 years or less, and she better be prepared to face that fact before 29 years of age.

“The piteous tales of artistic working women, of wives robbed by their worthless husbands, from the Mrs. Morton of fact to the Miss Trotwood [1] of fiction, formed the foundation of the claim for a revision of the law. Liberty for women to retain their own earnings. Obvious equity here! But the bulk of women’s property, in 99 out of every 100 cases, is not earned by them at all. It arises from gift or inheritance from parents, relatives, or even the despised husband. Whenever there is any earning in the matter it is notoriously earning by some mere man or other. Nevertheless, under the operation of the law, property is steadily being concentrated into women’s hands. “Once Stridhan [Woman’s property] always Stridhan.” [ 1 Mrs. Morton figures to be Hannah Morton, a successful shopkeeper in Hastings, England. Miss Trotwood is a character in “David Copperfield” by Charles Dickens. ]”

“I am having a hard time disagreeing with anything DH said at 3:35. Do I loose my man-card?”

You should. The laws while being gender-neutral on paper, doesn’t mean much. For instance read the last year’s story of the german heiress whose pre-nup was enforced in Britain thus making history. Besides the gender-neutrality in child custody laws(and sentencing time for crimes etc.) and the history of such gender-neturality in law laid out in The Legal Subjection of men.

And every man should know Briffault’s Law:The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

There are a few corollaries I would add:

1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

FHIt would be interesting to note where Mark Driscoll and Dr Mohler and others of their type live in America.

I don’t know where Mohler resides, but Driscoll runs a church in Seattle, one of the most left wing areas around. It’s easy to claim to be “conservative” and “traditional” in a place that is a colder version of San Francisco – by comparison to almost everyone around, of course. Driscoll’s Mars Hill church is so successful, that satellites have been set up – people go to church in a kind of movie theater, sing, have collection, etc. and Driscoll preaches via TV link.

It’s no accident that Driscoll panders to women. That’s where the money is.

Just look at Barbara Rainy in my post above stating the biggest gift her hubby ever gave was to tell her he didnt care if they ever had sex again he just loved who she is.

That is so incredibly sad. He seriously failed that fitness test. Talk about dancing for your executioner…

AR wrote:

A woman with a partner count of 5 is not going to like being told she’s a slut, because back when she was practicing the preferred female form of promiscuity – serial polyandry – nobody told her this.

Yes! Right! That is why I wanted the slut definition. Let’s have a demarcation line. Nobody ever called me a slut before FH did and I was pissed. After some thought, I was like, Yep. Did the serial boyfriend thing from age 18-21, so even though I don’t have a double-digit partner count, I needed to change my thinking about that so I can be clearer in how I will counsel my daughters and other girls over whom I have some influence.

your observations lead to mine that this is why we continue to struggle with:

1. what is a slut
2. what N constitutes sluthood
3. what is acceptable and not acceptable in female behavior
4. at what point does slutty behavior cause irreparable damage rendering her completely and irrevocably unfit for marriage

AR is right that women need to be very careful. It’s only in hindsight that most women can finally figure out they are sluts, but by then it’s too late. For most women, her friends are also sluts, and some of them have much higher Ns than she does. So because she doesn’t have as high an N as her friend Slutty Samantha, she’s not a slut. Samantha might be a slut, but she’s not.

I have heard many, many women say that they honestly didn’t know having sex with men into the double digits would cause them any problems later in life. “No one told me it was wrong. Everyone else was doing it. It seemed like the thing to do at the time. I just thought when I was ready to get married, I’d find someone and we would get married and live happily ever after.”

I don’t get how any woman could think that a double digit N, blackout drunk sex, and a series of ONSs is a good idea. I don’t get how any woman could think that her future husband will just gloss over that.

1. The wages and earning made by a wife were to be held by her for her own separate use, independently from her husband. The meaning of wages included money made from any employment, occupation, or trade, or the use of any skill such as a literary, scientific, or artistic skill that resulted in money being made. This section also covered investments made with the money earned. ”

“A long and energetic campaign by different women’s groups and some men led to the passing of this Act.”

as for child custody going to mothers since 70s due to being primary caretakers(oooh it’s so gender-neutral, men should thank us feminists for that), it would make more sense for men to make it default father(as in the one who earns or earns much more) and the mother(as in the primary caretaker) has to have nanny duties, for which she might be recompensed by her ex-spouse and given a place to sleep for the night. (after all the world needed more fathering as the feminists used to say before changing their tune)
If US doesn’t self-destruct before the gender role-reversal is complete or the war amongst women like in Massachusetts alimony reform is won by the career harpies, expect these changes to be put in.

I think that’s the key. Culturally we (by default) accept rotating polyandry as being legitimate when it is merely the preferred form of promiscuity among women. In reality, it is where women incubate their taste for alpha while undermining their capacity to bond with their future husband. It also allows them a great deal of scope to experiment with using sex as a tool to get what they want– which they will naturally apply to their husband later on– inadvertently destroying the foundation of trust and commitment in their marriage in the process.

@ Some Guy – also, I think we need to start proclaiming that the double standard exists and is okay. My husband’s N>30, and I don’t think this has affected his ability to bond with me. Of course, fornication is a sin for everyone, but in terms of damage control…

I shy away from mentioning the double standard…. Your typical feminist gets enough righteous indignation from its existence that she can justify anything she might want to do. (On any significant question of morality, the conversation stops as soon as she can find any sort of moral equivalency….)

SSM: This may come across as an insult, and I don’t mean it so, but someone’s got to say it anyway, if for no other reason than for someone (else) to debate a definite answer to it: if he’s N>30, he’s got some serious alpha cred, and women with alphas practically fall all over themselves to convince themselves that He Truly Loves Me And Only Me. On what concrete grounds, then, do you (or anyone else) say that high male Ns don’t affect their ability to bond with women? I mean, between you and Roosh, whose word on the matter should I trust?

I’d like to think that my value as a wife goes beyond my usefulness to him.

The worst thing would be to feel that I was of little or no use to a man. Why I am here if I’m no use? Why the disparaging of usefulness? Life isn’t all about grand spiritual enlightenment or mind blowing experiences. Much of life is utilitarian.

“This conversation reminded me of a similar one I had at an earlier time with a female colleague of mine. Her husband sought spousal support from her and she was equally outraged over it. As she put it “it’s not something you bargain for when you get married”.

“In the context of a child support dispute, one of my female clients lamented that “so I went out and built this successful business and my reward is I have to pay child support to him?”.

I think it takes men longer to reach that point than it does women. Not that it doesn’t matter at all or there’s no effect, but a woman who has had 10 lovers is a lot worse off than a man who has had 10. Similar to how a 40 year-old woman is, in a reproductive sense, older than a 40 year-old man. It’s just the way biology works.

You’re lying to yourself as surely as the Bennett’s and Moehler’s do. They don’t read the NYT? They don’t read The Atlantic? They don’t read the Bible? They are not “stuck in the 50s”. They REFUSE to see the devastation in front of them; just as you are refusing to admit they do this. They remain in the 50s because they choose to idolize themselves and their upbringings; just as surely as lefty boomers idolize their Woodstock antics. […]You’re not speaking of godly men caught in a trap, but vain men choosing a prison of the mind.

I don’t get how any woman could think that a double digit N, blackout drunk sex, and a series of ONSs is a good idea. I don’t get how any woman could think that her future husband will just gloss over that.

I think they don’t realize their future husband probably isn’t engaging in the same kind of behavior, either because he chooses not to or because he’s a shy beta and shunned by girls. They assume that everyone’s participating except for the real losers who are not even on their radar, and they’ll eventually marry an older version of one of the alpha studs they’re banging at the moment. When these women eventually encounter a mature and confident greater beta, she thinks he’s some sort of strange anomaly to have made it into his 20s with such a low partner count. By the time they are 30, like Stuart Brazell, they finally realize that you “sleep with the bad boys, you don’t marry them.”

empath wrote:
“Just look at Barbara Rainy in my post above stating the biggest gift her hubby ever gave was to tell her he didnt care if they ever had sex again he just loved who she is.
“Tell me, someone, anyone……why is that such a wonderful thing?
Why is that sentiment such a perceived pearl?”

Because, it confirms the notion that her beauty can tame the savage beast. All the while, maintaining the double standard that he must be changed while, due to the inherent goodness of the woman, she cannot be expected to change. Or if she does, it is in response to him.

Women, relegated to being pawns of their environment.

Rather, and I say this with love, Dennis should have responded that at his hands, he was going to transform her into HIS ravenous tigress (dare I say, monogamous slut?).

I disagree with Matt King on making common cause with Driscolls and Moehlers, and other Balaams in the world. They will not see their error. God could reveal an angel with a flaming sword to them, that any ass could see, and they’ll still eventually lead the church into great sin.

This is the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. You assume that these God-fearing Christians are doomed to worship the idol of feminism above the cross of Christ — and you assume this by virtue of online writings and videos.

My point is, yours is a loser’s approach. Lincoln: “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?” Your disposition requires you to mistake their conviction based in error for permanent obstinacy and therefore enmity, and I see no evidence of the impossibility of redemption in honest Christian preachers like Driscoll or Moehler. I see them imbuing their errors with passion, just like the rest of us sinners do, captured in the thrall of superbia. Nothing that cannot be overcome.

This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene, or his moral character in the eyes of a wife. Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor, and his physical appearance.

Yes, of course. When a man is not meeting the aesthetic expectations of a supervising woman, he is a putrid, hideous abomination. But if men ever dare to hold any aesthetic expectations about women, why, that would be oppression! Cruel enforcement of “The Beauty Myth!” Driving the poor girls into anorexia!

Instead, his eyes roam across the images of unblinking faces, leering at women who make no demands upon him, who never speak back, and who can never say no. There is no exchange of respect, no exchange of love, and nothing more than the using of women as sex objects for his individual and inverted sexual pleasure.

And Mohler makes sure that he pays homage to Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

It’s not a double standard, folks. The man does not bond to the woman; she bonds to him. She is the tape. The danger a man (and his woman) run into when the man has a high partner count is that his spouse won’t be able to bond to him. In both cases of high partner count, the effect is the same: her ability to stick is reduced. It’s not a double standard. She is the tape: he is the object being taped.

Think of it this way: If the area to be taped has been taped multiple times, and also had the tape removed several times, there will start to be a build up of dust, lint, and old residue that will render future tape less adhesive.

The Bible’s analogy of “cleave” is better. The man cleaves the woman, and she is fit to his axe. The more wood a man chops, the duller his axe becomes. Every tree chopped renders the next one more likely to be broken by the application of the axe, than cleaved by it.

My point is, yours is a loser’s approach. Lincoln: “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?” Your disposition requires you to mistake their conviction based in error for permanent obstinacy and therefore enmity, and I see no evidence of the impossibility of redemption in honest Christian preachers like Driscoll or Moehler. I see them imbuing their errors with passion, just like the rest of us sinners do, captured in the thrall of superbia. Nothing that cannot be overcome.

This is excellent. I normally don’t comment on what you write because I have nothing intelligent to add, but I wanted to acknowledge that your sober thoughts are appreciated and give me pause.

I’ve wrestled with almost all parts of the SMP and the MMP. This — the concept that women believe a high N is not harmful — is one of the last concepts I’ve struggled with. Your answer is part of it:

“I think they don’t realize their future husband probably isn’t engaging in the same kind of behavior, either because he chooses not to or because he’s a shy beta and shunned by girls. They assume that everyone’s participating except for the real losers who are not even on their radar, and they’ll eventually marry an older version of one of the alpha studs they’re banging at the moment. When these women eventually encounter a mature and confident greater beta, she thinks he’s some sort of strange anomaly to have made it into his 20s with such a low partner count.”

The other part has to be feminist upbringing — that men and women are exactly the same except that women are essentially men who can have babies. Therefore, women can have sex like men — pursue like men, f**k like men, and pump and dump men.

IF a group of people call themselves “conservative”, then I will use that word to refer to them. If a group of people call themselves “traditionalists”, then likewise. Those who call themselves “traditional conservatives” hold a variety of views, and they can be found in many corners of the web, but an awful lot of them are neo-Victorians who put women on pedestals, just as Dalrock mentioned in the OP.

… Rather than split hairs endlessly in search of the True Conservative, I prefer to take people’s self labeling at their word and proceed onward.

Do they indeed call themselves “TradCons”?

I too refuse to split hairs, and you mistake my argument for semantical fastidiousness or a facile truth-in-labeling plaint.

No. Rather I am criticizing the Dalrock/gameosphere tendency to ghettoize itself with preciously defined jargon that goes contrary to the plain meaning of a phrase. (Vox Dei is the worst offender of this sci-fi gimcrack geekery.) Passers-by like me will not have the benefit of familiarity with code-words. The community thus undoes itself with acronyms and insider-speak (like, say, “PUA”). There is a utility to short hand, of course, but the success of your project depends on uniting it to more mainstream modes of thinking — without losing its conviction! tricky, I know — or else suffer the fate of all passionate but infertile cults. Unfortunately, true-believers tend to ghettoize themselves and marginalize their community in “tests of purity” and declarations of holier-than-thou incorruptibilty, which alienates would-be allies.

He’s taking issue with Dalrock, and insisting that rather than take on the content of what Driscoll, Mohler, etc. are saying, we should instead attack their “traditional conservative” credentials. That would be a total waste of time. Driscoll could play AMOG all day against “you’re not a REAL conservative, you’re not a REAL traditionalist” and not break a sweat.

It’s not form, it is the content. It’s not the picture, it’s the object. It’s not the symbol, it’s the referent. It’s the pedestalizing, vagina-worshipping, feminized, yes-dear, doormat mindset that is hurting men, no matter what it’s called.

Not at all. I “tak[e] issue” with their “pedestalizing, vagina-worshipping, feminized, yes-dear, doormat mindset” as much as, if not more than you. But you are doing it all wrong.

Men who are attracted to “traditional conservatism” will be duped into the bait-and-switch technique of Driscoll’s cryptofeminism. Just like you, they will eventually sour of their charlatan spiel and seek community with those who saw through them.

But instead of telling these men-seeking-traditionalism that they were misled by Driscoll from the get-go, you are making a much more complicated (and less persuasive case) that traditionalism itself is wrong, and therefore they were wrong to have pursued it in the first place. It is easier to simply point out how Driscoll doesn’t represent traditionalism so much as he abuses the term.

This is how allies are gathered.

Matt

P.S. Driscoll “AMOGs” his flock of pliant beta sheep. Like most men of grand convictions, he mistakes his Pharisaical self-righteousness for epistemological certitude. In those first-principle arguments I would be happy to be out-AMOGed because I would be improved by the experience. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful it will occur.

I encounter superficiality in this manner of thinking all the time and am disappointed all the time. If a lawyer wants to make a good closing argument, it helps to be conversant in the justification of the rule of law. Few rhetoricians are. They are used to making sophistic displays that excite sympathetic audiences. (If you have facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table.) Rarely are they called to justify themselves at the level of which I’m speaking.

How is standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” any different than a drift sock?

Drift socks align themselves with the wind. “Athwart history/’Stop!'” is a windshield, “stopping” and redirecting it.

… I’ll consider using a better term than traditional conservative as soon as someone proposes one*. I started off using Social Conservative, but switched to Trad Con fairly shortly thereafter. The term itself isn’t redundant though. There are different types of conservatives. I’m referring to those who want to conserve traditional values and culture. I’m not referring to economic or fiscal conservatives.

Use whatever terms and analogies you want. I am commenting on their relative ineffectiveness in the hope that you will think more deeply about strategy and gather allies to your cause, which is a worthy cause.

You brought it up …

… and so, “TradCon” that I am, I will bring us back to what the metaphor classically signifies:

The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.

Wordsmiths though we imagine ourselves to be, we communicate best and most broadly, like Jesus, through parable and metaphor. It pays to cogitate on those rhetorical devices, to make them precise, to refine them in order that they serve our cause with the many rather than creating interesting but ultimately useless intramural thought-projects with the few. Art reaches and teaches, rhetoric preaches. Poesy trumps polemic.

This is the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. You assume that these God-fearing Christians are doomed to worship the idol of feminism above the cross of Christ — and you assume this by virtue of online writings and videos.

You are not acknowledging that I said they might be useful if they step down from their positions as leaders.

Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan. He destroyed the American republic by doing precisely what you would have us do: force on us conscription into his version of what America should be like.

For my side of the argument: I choose Saul as the champion of Bennetts and Mohler; who would not accept that his time of usefulness had ended, and that another had been chosen. Despite the extraordinary efforts of David to spare him he would not step aside until both he and his son were dead–devastating the lives of all Israel, and setting a tragic course for generations of Israelites.

Because, it confirms the notion that her beauty can tame the savage beast. All the while, maintaining the double standard that he must be changed while, due to the inherent goodness of the woman, she cannot be expected to change. Or if she does, it is in response to him.
———————————————————————————————————–
Sorta. (re the first sentence), may seem a small difference but I’d say control instead of tame, and I do not like to parse words for fun.
I think the rest of your answer is more accurate.
There is another reason that is very simple. She believes it because she has been raised hearing it as what to believe, never taught or imparted, rather just hearing the notion in the back ground.
Remember SSM’s comments about how her first nature as a believer was to be a shrewish moralizer? That plays in here as well.

Ive had countless conversations on line with mixed groups about sex in marriage and aw a hard line drawn by most Christian woman and tons of hapless white knight Christian men (like Gariels husband who dutifully told her its her companionship he values, and Dennis rainy tells his wife no sex = AOK cuz a the lerve he feels. As much as the church preaches this glorious view on sex somehow they convey something that is not real, not the way they say it is.

One woman on CF was always proud to tell us how her husband feels about sex, never realizing the her overt attitude would cause a man with utmost integrity to lie or spin truth, he told her sex never even entered his mind unless she was physically in the same room. This was a woman who had invented a term she called “beasty sex” which she built her own biblical case for the fact it was sin, that if the man wants physical release and approaches the wife for sex….that is beasty sex and a sin. She OF COURSE (see my reference above to control) was the arbiter of this, being the more moral by nature.

Another woman took a similar track. She said that the only innate good sex was that which seeks a spiritual oneness sort of apogee, having nothing to do with physical desire, which served to diminish Gods intent for sex.

They have made shit up basically and the motive is control, and drama/empathy. How better to get empathy than to be wronged by your husband. How better to be wronged more frequently than to invent nebulous ideas and name self as the authority on them by fiat. Hell you will always be in a state of abuse in some way when you do that.

These women say sex isnt even a co equal part of marriage,. rather its icing on cake etc etc, it FOLLOWS all these other wonderful more spiritual and God ordained things.

There is a site that is for curing porn addiction. One of the authors, perhaps the founder even, is Pastor Ed. The site is

If you want to see just a tad of the stuff that under girds the beliefs that causes women to be so wrong on sex in marriage while paying lip service (no pun….really….) to it topically then review what this guy says here. he speaks of a guy who needed to be *cured* because seeing his wife naked after the shower would cause him arousal. Ed himself speaks of (I may have this slightly off in paraphrase) sitting nude together in bed with his wife and he is absolutely trained to not be physically compelled by her nude presence, and how they will talk, discuss books and things, and only if he feels sufficiently that he is connecting to her absent a fleeting thought about sex, then he proceeds with sex sometimes.

Lets not discount the porn ministry and overt posture of the church on porn for its (maybe well intended, Im not pro porn) damaging effect to married sexual relations.

Listening to a woman melt down at the His Needs Her Needs seminar my wife and I attended 10 plus years ago is what set me to reading about this stuff. The 10 week class dealth with one of those famous needs per week, saving for the last session the mens survey says number one need, sex. The teacher brought his wife to sort of apologize to the women that this was number one for men, and they asked folks to study and read that week to prepare for that final need.

The night of the class the tension was palpable. Most of the couples had clearly been arguing to the point the teacher opened joking that that always happened.

Finally one women couldnt control herself and said she could not stand it that we had to include that because, she stammered, its just, just, …….different.

you mistake my argument for semantical fastidiousness or a facile truth-in-labeling plaint.
————————————————————————–
Thank you…..I cannot even come to grips with how he saw that as your intent, especially with the backdrop of that same semantical fastidiousness so often being THE basis for discussion here on certain topics, and not a peep of complaint.

Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan
————————————————–
I promise Cane, I’m not trying to play surrogate here. But I think you have misunderstood his appeal just as AR misunderstood his other points as trivial definition debates.

He didn’t appeal to Lincoln. Your rebuke of Lincoln is completely irrelevant to what he said. Lincoln just happened to make the statement that was the operative part of his point. Had Barney the dinosaur said it it would be no less true (or false) hence that he is a goofy man in a purple suit dancing around with the inappropriately named other dinosaur BJ would also be irrelevant.

Are the women holding out on their husbands…? Are they conscious of it…? Do they feel guilty? Has anyone *ever* called them on it…? How many of the couples would have outright sexless marriages…? And then overlaying that… you have to crack a lot of jokes to cover up the tension. Because no speaker would dare teach 1 Corinthians 7…? Would these women faint if someone did…?

I know my wife would rather it be a communication problem than a faithfulness problem. But tell me again… what exactly is going on in this scenario…?

Some guy, I don’t follow your questions. I cant tell if you are making a statement or if you are not familiar with that book His Needs her Needs. In case…..its a pretty famous Christian book where some 45000 couples were surveyed and asked their top needs in marriage. The results define the top 5 for men and for women. Each need is then discussed in these seminars. Womens number 1 was affection (screams “NONSEXUAL”)

Southern “talk”:
Your appeal to Lincoln is well-chosen because I am not a fan. He destroyed the American republic by doing precisely what you would have us do: force on us conscription into his version of what America should be like.

The South has 9 million people at the time of the Civil War. 4 million of them were slaves with no rights who could be killed at whim provided the slavemaster wasn’t an idiot about it. I await your explanation of how a country can be “free” and 45% of it’s population have no rights at all.

Slavery WAS the South. The South WAS Slavery. They CANNOT be separated.

Use whatever terms and analogies you want. I am commenting on their relative ineffectiveness in the hope that you will think more deeply about strategy and gather allies to your cause, which is a worthy cause.

Have you paused to consider what excellence his terms and analogies have gathered so far? I am very often the smartest man in the room, both demonstrably, and by measure. Here, I don’t even crack the top ten demonstrably, and I feel pretty certain that my measure is respectively even further to the left of this blog’s curve.

That’s not to say we ought to sit around patting ourselves on the back, but–goodness!–keep things in perspective.

Sorry if I’m unclear. I have never heard sex dealt with in a Christian setting like you describe. It sounds like the men’s #1 need was treated as an embarrassing joke. I guess I’m asking… what the heck were those people thinking…? (I’m asking for speculation on this as I’m sure it would play out similarly at my church….)

Slavery WAS the South. The South WAS Slavery. They CANNOT be separated.

If the northern states had let their slavery-corrupt brothers go, the North would have been a free country, and I would have been happy to be a part of it.

I am not an apologist of the South, and didn’t play one above. The fact remains that for all intents-and-purposes Lincoln made himself emperor of a new country, by conquest. This new country was no longer stained by the sin of explicit slavery of some men, but formed now by a kinder, gentler implicit slavery of all men.

You appear to be of a mind that there are only two ways to look at a bad situation: the way you like, and the way you don’t. In fact, there are many, and they are almost all bad.

Some Guy
You were probably clear…..
Anyway, the setting is 10 couples, the format is an hour discussing a need, I wouldnt assume too much about how sex is dealt with there. The other needs were things like
an attractive spouse
a helpful spouse
a recreational partner (sports/hobbies)
communication
affection

I don’t remember them all, and Ive sense grown to not be a huge fan of that book as well as the 5 love languages one. they may be astute observations, but they lack the utility they seem initially to represent.

So the idea was to discuss the need….sex/whatever…..and legitimize the needs and explain them to the other gender, to get the one with the need to be seen as reasonable an the one who should meet the need to grasp its importance. Sex per se is not discussed functionally at all.
The man whose wife went apoplectic followed her comment with his own steely words….after the ladies had their wrongheaded beliefs affirmed by the teachers….those being the story all Christian men are sold that we gotta lather her up all day and jump through higher and narrower hoops all day and then she will be willing to have sex that night…..after that bunk, the guy said yea, then we go to bed and the phone rings and somehow she has had a bad day…..cancelled.

Promiscuous women really do assume that because they can sleep with men, effortlessly, that all men are doing likewise – and thus a high partner count in a woman is not in any way off-putting to a man. I have come across this but – in my role as a greater Beta – merely, I suppose, gamed the woman in question – it really was candy from a baby.

What I do notice sometimes is that women are, or at least appear to be, impressed with a woman who has ‘success with men’. Perhaps they would like to be like that woman but have some impulse control or lack of extraversion that restrains them. They assume, perhaps, that men are not as easy to bed as they actually are, and that their friend being popular with men is thus showing some valuable skill they wish they had. Nothing of course can be more more delusional.

Of course Opus, because in the broken child-mind that is inside the empty space that is the anglo-womans skull she believes that her ‘virtuous’ body requires a valuable skill to get into the nearby mens washroom to ride a DJ bareback. Thus the DJ too must require a valuable skill too.

“I fucked that DJ, so I must be doing SOMETHING right, look at what a catch I am!”

From the OP: “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.” This is unassailable doctrine in Christian circles.

If men’s needs aren’t being met… then they are not doing it right. He’s gotta “jump through higher and narrower hoops all day and then she will be willing to have sex that night.”

Books like “His Needs, Her Needs” and “Love and Respect” make a show of dealing with men and women equally… but the guys end up with the short end of the stick. He is responsible for doing more and doing it better. She gets a pass if she’s not feeling it.

According to game… women’s #1 need (affection) is… not actually what they really need/want.

Asking a woman what she needs, as that “His Needs, Her Needs” survey did, is foolishness. We servants ought to be asking The Master what we need to do. (I know, I can here some of you screeching already.) If we trust God to be good, then why the hesitation to trust that His Word is good for us? It is the primary way any of us know Him, or know that He’s good!

Read Song of Solomon 2:8-17, the description of the man, and what he does. He is having an adventure, going through the world, and then comes to peer through her garden gate and invite her to come with him. Then he goes, and does it–not waiting for her reply. She will follow, or she won’t.

Then read Song of Solomon 3:6-11, the description of how the man approaches the woman: he is strong, armed, surrounded by stout friends, and bedecked with what he has won from his time out in the world. This is where Game fails in comparison to the theology of marriage. You can pretend some things, but others must be duly earned. There’s something else here, with which I’m hoping Desiderius can help me with.*

Besides: the fact remains that women often don’t know how to verbally prioritize very well. Men usually do. Watch her actions to know what she finds important.

@Desiderius
I’ve been pondering your idea about women being the keepers of morals, for most of the day. Is this what is referred to in Song of Solomon 3:11

Go out, O daughters of Zion,
and look upon King Solomon,with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.

Empath- It was Deti that used the word “only”. And it was the word “only” that I found peculiar, especially since he said “everything else is a burden”.

I think it was probably a badly formed sentence because obviously the other things in marriage are not a burden..like friendships, children (hopefully), and whatever specific services a spouse provides.

I don’t think women marry for financial provision. I think women get married to have companionship first and children second. I think men generally get married because they meet a woman who they adore and they want to claim her as their own.

Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness.

If my husband could no longer provide for me in the ways he does I would be upset but I wouldn’t leave. I have learned (somewhat through previous mistakes) to be fiercely loyal. Nothing is going to tear my family apart. There is no mistake he can make that will make me file for divorce.

“Sorta. (re the first sentence), may seem a small difference but I’d say control instead of tame, and I do not like to parse words for fun.
I think the rest of your answer is more accurate.”
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I solely drew from the title of Dalrock’s article.

@Cane — “We servants ought to be asking The Master what we need to do.”

Ah… no you’re talking *my* “love language.”

Here’s the full women’s list:

1. Affection — [Actually prioritization of this is mostly just a fitness test to justify withholding sex for some other objective that she has. Also… it invests in the narrative that women are not lustful brutes, but rather dainty, sophisticated, and naturally pure. This is more about campaigning for her moral superiority than about really addressing her genuine needs.]
2. Conversation — [Translation: I want my husband to agree with me obsequiously… and listen to me intently when I complain constantly.]
3. Honesty and Openness — [Why? Do married women show any degree of empathy or sympathy or compassion when their husbands “open up” to them?]
4. Financial Commitment — [Really, if she doesn’t wet her panties for you, this is all she’s in it for. And thanks to the laws of the land, she can get this with or without remaining faithful to you!]
5. Family Commitment — [AKA the “honey do” list.]

“The 10 week class dealth with one of those famous needs per week, saving for the last session the mens survey says number one need, sex. ”
~*~*~*~*~*~
Aaaaaahhhh…the churchian way. Put it at the end, just like every marriage book, every other seminar. “Sex is important but it is not the most important thing in marriage.” Which automatically puts it at the bottom of the list.

If the northern states had let their slavery-corrupt brothers go, the North would have been a free country, and I would have been happy to be a part of it.

I am not an apologist of the South, and didn’t play one above. The fact remains that for all intents-and-purposes Lincoln made himself emperor of a new country, by conquest. This new country was no longer stained by the sin of explicit slavery of some men, but formed now by a kinder, gentler implicit slavery of all men.

You appear to be of a mind that there are only two ways to look at a bad situation: the way you like, and the way you don’t. In fact, there are many, and they are almost all bad.

Well, if you were actually being honest when raving about “the evils of conscription” and how it “ruined the republic” then you are most certainly an idiot. But I doubt that.

Far more likely, you are a slippery little sneak. I imagine I could waste quite a bit of time attempting to pin you down as you babble nonsense. Fortunately, I can’t be bothered to.

I think men generally get married because they meet a woman who they adore and they want to claim her as their own.
———————–
This is indeed the female frame of why men marry.
________________________________________________________

Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person
—————————————————–
This makes no sense. The first sentence says “emphasis” which clearly implies more than one thing, the second sentence states mutual exclusivity…..that sneaky “only” again, just more subtle
____________________________________________________________

If my husband could no longer provide for me in the ways he does I would be upset but I wouldn’t leave
—————————
Again the female frame of reference. There has been and need not be any discussion of what you would do if he COULD NOT provide, just as there has been nor need be any discussion (in this thread context) of if she COULD NOT have sex. Its about willful denial.

Being lectured about utility by a woman is like being lectured about racism from a white nationalist.

Utility is as fundamental to the female view of the male as the oxygen in the air is fundamental to the functioning of the human body. Without it, there is no female view of the male, he is ‘surplus’ and will be consumed and disposed of, and women will take sadistic delight in doing so. After all Its time for revenge right girls? All those millenia of oppression and misogyny, time for revenge against daddy, husband, and brother!

So that you understand wholly where everyone on this forum is coming from, I present the following to you.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5.

“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

We believe this book was the inspired word of God. His instructions on how we should live our lives. According to this, sex is not something that both parties agree to, but instead something that is expected of both parties. If you are not of the Christian persuasion, good for you. Now go away. The argument is over. We have clear teaching from a source older than you about how our affairs are to be handled and your opinion on the matter doesn’t and can’t change that.

We are realizing as a group that we have let things get out of control in our religious organizations and we are laying the groundwork to deal with it, by first identifying the problem and then making inroads to reverse this trend. No where in history has a government successfully held off the separation of church and state, and liberals have used this separation to have their way with the institution of marriage. We have decided that we are not going to play anymore. We are going to take it back and you don’t have to like it.

As a first step in this endeavor, we intend to give men back the power in a relationship that will at least put them on an equal playing field with the women. We know you don’t agree with this. We know you don’t think it’s as bad as we say it is. But again, we don’t care what you think. Your legal background will not stand up to clear teachings from a source of authority higher than your own. Our intention is that the church that only slows down the progress of our society towards godlessness will instead become an anchor that refuses to let people like you gain an inch.

Danger @ 6:49 a.m. asks:So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?

Sorry I’m a bit late in responding today. Because, again, alimony and half the assets aren’t a quid pro quo for sex. No matter how much you happen to like sex and your ex-wife happens to need money. Wives are not prostitutes.

The idea behind marriage is that you’re a team. Thus, anything acquired during the marriage (including your marriage) is attributed to your joint efforts. Thus, the assets as much HERS as they are yours because of all the tangible and intangible support she provided while you were working.

Alimony is a slightly different matter but it goes back to the idea of a team. When you marry you agree that you will carry each other in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. This is the quid pro quo. Thus, if you get laid off or depressed and can’t work, she goes out and earns a paycheck. Based on factors such as the length of the marraige, her sacrifice of earning capacity (if any), and her health, age, lack of ability to earn, you may have to pay alimony. That way the housewife of 32 years’ marriage isn’t suddenly starving on the street upon divorce. Courts award less alimony to younger women and women earning their own way (and yes, they do award alimony to men too, though the vast majority of recipients are women). This is a risk of marrying a financially weaker person or benefiting from a deal in which your spouse sacrifices future earning capacity to care for home and children.

Its not so complicated. You either respect your husband as a PERSON or you don’t. You either love your wife as a PERSON or you don’t. Based upon the conversations here it would seem many men do not love their wives as a person just like many women don’t respect their husbands as a person.

This makes for a miserable marriage. Instead of your spouse being a source of moral, spiritual, and psychological strength the utilitarian marriage turns each spouse into entitled narcissists ]who constantly does cost/benefit analysis of whether their wife/husband measures up. Its very adversarial. All human beings need people who are in their corner. The world plays judge and jury. Your spouse should be your defense attorney, not the prosecutor.

“Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness. ”

You are wrong. 100% absolutely and without equivocation. People are utility, positive or negative just like everything else in the world. Life is binary. You can only think this is not true because you are spoiled and pampered and have not ever faced the real world. I am not exaggerating or using hyperbole. Just like most people in developed countries you have more than likely never killed or butchered and animal, never plowed, planted, grown, or harvested food. You have never been shot at or had to kill another human. You have never seen your friends in bloody chunks on the side of the road.
Do a few of those and get back to me on how flowery and wonderful life is. Tell me how much more than utility we are to each other.
When our current western civilization comes to an abrupt stop, your attitude may change.

I agree, Gabby. I’d say that very few people would consider their spouse disposable. And even though you know my thoughts on this subject (1 Corinthians 7 is a good frame of reference), I think marriage serves a purpose beyond the utilitarian in both partners, according to Ephesians and 1 Peter.

A utilitarian marriage holds people to account by putting limits on their behavior, thus giving them proper motivation to treat each other like people. Without it, we have what we have today. Marriage of conscience (aka: no real marriage at all).

@Gabriella — To borrow an illustration from “Love and Respect,” it is unbelievably difficult to love someone that has their foot stomped down on your air supply. That’s what withholding sex does– and Christian women are ideologically opposed to giving up that stick. Almost no church would dare tell them to follow 1 Cor 7.

A man enters a marriage to a Christian woman and finds he has a gun held to his head. Then he is criticized for having anger issues. This is not marriage. This is fraud.

Thank you for the verse from Corinthians. I am familiar with it. I’m not sure what I’ve said that is contrary to it (although it’s true that I do not accept the notion that the spouses own each other’s bodies). But in terms of what that means for how spouses should act, I would agree that spouses should not deprive each other except by mutual consent. I don’t think it’s saying that you should have to drop what you’re doing at any moment and have sex upon your spouse’s demand, nor is it saying that husbands should be permitted to force sex on their wives. I think it’s saying that as a matter of proper conduct you should have regular intercourse with your spouse unless you both agree to a period of celibacy.

The poor dears don’t like being looked upon in terms of their utility because beyond their vaginas, they really don’t have much of a utility for a man anymore. They don’t even have looks to fall back on anymore.

The equation is starting to reverse: Men now only see utility in women, this is a profound achievement and I will cheer it on at every opportunity. Generations of men have had nothing to offer women but their ability to slave, work, then die for cupcake and her spawn, I am happy to see the vice-versa starting to take hold.

I’m sorry your delicate sensibilities require an immediate response of ‘black do it too’ when even the mention of the phrase ‘white nationalist’ is invoked. Really your ilk are far too wimpy and thin-skinned. A mere mention is all it takes to get you to come out and whine about false equivalencies.

So even mentioning that I have a real world counter-example to what you said in an entire region of the country is not allowed? I know a lot of feminists who use shaming language much the same as you just did. Double standard much?

@whatever: Have you read Lincoln’s First Inaugural? No? Please do. Then tell the class:

1: Whether Lincoln opposed slavery in any official capacity
2: What Lincoln considered grounds for military invasion

Then please explain how the answer to 2 – which, I’ll help you out some: has nothing whatsoever to do with the Southern slave system in any shape, form, or fashion – was not a direct repudiation of both the principles of 1776 and of the lowercase-f-federalist theory of government.

It’s feminists who see women in terms of utility that doesn’t go beyond their genitalia, not men. For all the shrieking about men seeing us that way, this is pretty embarrassing and juvenile.

I do wish women would shut up about their vaginas. I keep praying someone gatecrashes one of those protests dressed as a giant dick, running toward the vaginas. That would be worth the price of admission.

Ha, YBM. Guess what? I happen to agree with the Apostle Paul that unless one’s sexual appetites compel you to marry, then it’s perfectly acceptable to skip marriage and family and devote yourself to serving God and others. I do believe that the one thing you can get from your spouse that you can’t get from any other relationship is sex.

I am also well aware of the utilitarian nature of marriage: that I have duties and responsibilities to my husband that I am to lovingly fulfill no matter how I feel about it, and that he has the same responsibility.

However, it is impossible for a serious Christian to believe that the temporal, utilitarian, and expedient are all that marriage was designed to be:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones.”For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs together with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Peter 3

There are other passages that deal with the utilitarian aspects of married life, but clearly, there is something deeper to be gained from it, not the least of which is an understanding of what true commitment and love really are.

Maybe this appears to be a straw man argument that I am saying I don’t recognize your authority to define whether or not people are binary, or utilitarian, or whatever other word you want to use. It is not. It is vital to the discussion. My assertions is that until you have experience with “less savory” aspects of life you do not have the experience necessary to make a call as to what is and what is not, in relation to human interactions. I would say the same if you had never worked on a car and told me how to fix one, or if you had never worked as a surgeon and told me the best way to perform an operation.

“Life sucks and you are a spoiled brat if you try to make it suck less” makes zero sense.

You don’t know what I have been through and experienced. I am well aware that life is very unpleasant sometimes but that is all the more reason why I am an advocate for fierce loyalty to ones spouse.

I am not going to adopt the most pessimistic views of life and marriage out of some false sense of solidarity with those who suffer more greatly than I do. I actually tried that once and it didn’t do anyone any good.

Some Guy: I agree that we owe it to our spouses to serve them how they are best served. In the case of men that often means frequent and varied sex. That is how we make marriage good and not duty and drudgery.

But when we are not being served well that doesn’t void the marriage contract. Marriage is more than an exchange of goods. Its our vocation. Our purpose. There is no “get out of marriage free” card.

The women commenting on mens blogs (and they are rapidly increasingly in number over the past 6 months) form probably the most concerning threat to the development of a cohesive ideology save for mrm posters who have daughters.

Women (especially middle class women) are rapidly watching their marriage/resource accumulation prospects vanish. As Dalrock has said, they flocked back into the church, and found the prospects no better. Now they have arrived here, nawalt and bible in hand to try and get the slaves back. Until a cohesive ideology is formed, these women are a distraction, or a threat. The best indication on what a womans REAL aims are when the comment on these blogs is their view on mgtow and expats.

Women (especially middle class women) are rapidly watching their marriage/resource accumulation prospects vanish. As Dalrock has said, they flocked back into the church, and found the prospects no better. Now they have arrived here, nawalt and bible in hand to try and get the slaves back. Until a cohesive ideology is formed, these women are a distraction, or a threat. The best indication on what a womans REAL aims are when the comment on these blogs is their view on mgtow and expats.

YBM, I have been commenting on Dalrock’s blog for 2 years. I have linked to him, and he has linked to me. I am happily married to a man who has mostly experienced success with women before we married and (with the exception of CS and custody issues) didn’t really get what all the fuss was about here when I first started getting linked to manosohere blogs.

Dalrock has framed this post in terms of Christian marriage, therefore I thought interjecting a Christian perspective into the discussion was an appropriate move.

I have no reason to be particularly invested in getting any “slaves” back. I’m not sure why happily married women who are sympathetic to the plight of their husbands, brothers, and sons in this culture are deemed a threat to the cause, but if and when Dalrock desires me to take my leave, I’ll be happy to do it.

You open yourself up to criticism because you do not know how to express yourself, or your experiences, for others. It’s as if you have the gift of tongues, and there is no one here to translate it. In such cases, we are admonished to keep it to ourselves. There is no shame in that. Even Mary, the best woman ever, treasured up in her heart the best news ever heard in the world, and pondered them in her heart. We don’t have to “get” the excellence you have been blessed to have revealed to you.

It should also be remembered that the Best News came to the world, and to Mary, because she had a vagina, and was willing to surrender herself and it to God.

That is not a joke, and it is not a joke to attach the highest importance to sex in a marriage, and the submission of women and their vaginas to their husbands.

I’m not sure why happily married women who are sympathetic to the plight of their husbands, brothers, and sons in this culture are deemed a threat to the cause, but if and when Dalrock desires me to take my leave, I’ll be happy to do it.”

This is illustrative moreso than anything I could have written, thank you for your succinct example of why the UTILITY OF MAN is what matters to the female posters of this blog. Oddly enough I wasn’t even thinking of you when I wrote that post, what can I say I bring out the best in people hahahaha!

That men only exist in the definitions of husband, brother, and son (to the exclusion of all others) shows just how precisely I identified the motivations of the women who have started to show up in the manosphere blogs.

My assertions is that until you have experience with “less savory” aspects of life you do not have the experience necessary to make a call as to what is and what is not, in relation to human interactions.

Touche, YBM. I will not deny that seeing the devastation that men close to me have suffered was opened my eyes to problems I didn’t realized existed. I have spent nearly my entire adult life as a married housewife and mother of a fairly large family. Yes, I was mostly oblivious.

However, given the frequency of the sentiment expressed here (by numerous commenters on numerous posts) that no woman who is unrelated to a man is worthy of his assistance, I wonder that what I said was revealing of anything so sinister.

However, given the frequency of the sentiment expressed here (by numerous commenters on numerous posts) that no woman who is unrelated to a man is worthy of his assistance, I wonder that what I said was revealing of anything so sinister.

Whether right or wrong, this sentiment comes from the experiences of men who have been burned by entitled women for giving any kind of assistance. Conversely, *nice* men receive no assistance from these same women. A double standard to be sure, but there is good reason for it.

You are welcome to argue against that particular strawman all you like, it is my opinion that men should not help ANY women if he doesn’t desire too, blood or not. Then again, if that happened women might just start to notice that the utility that comes from a man is what keeps her a whole hell of a lot of bad shit happening to her.

Pot calling the kettle black would be an appropriate application if men were to say women are obligated to assist men in need up to and including sacrificing their lives in wars and ‘men and children first’ while also saying they don’t owe women anything in return and infact believe women are quite useless…..

You are so right. I know another woman who boasts about having shagged the D.J., having shagged the guy with the muscles, having shagged a man twenty years her junior, and having shagged more or less a whole room of young boys. Really, when you have to tout that as evidence that you are desirable, what can I do but cry – or laugh. The converse would be a guy boasting his desirability because he had, despite endless female attention, remained a virgin.

Promiscuity in women often seems to hide great insecurity or inferority.

The other part has to be feminist upbringing — that men and women are exactly the same except that women are essentially men who can have babies. Therefore, women can have sex like men — pursue like men, f**k like men, and pump and dump men.

Definitely.

I would also say this idea is strongly reinforced by the way school and socializing is structured when you’re children. Throughout early parts of life children tend to be grouped exclusively children their own age for many, mostly very practical reasons. Generally speaking, all those children share a variety of developmental experiences and can bond with each other over those shared experiences. In many cases, it’s the exact same group of kids going through their entire K-12 school career. After graduation, especially if you attend college or the military you wind up with many other people your age who also shared very similar experiences in their own high schools.

I think it’s simply taken for granted that everyone in a particular age group should follow a similar life path. (High school, college/military, career, marriage, kids, retirement) Young adulthood is about having fun and taking risks while everyone should settle and marry in their 30s.

That is, of course, the feminine imperative. Men as a group (especially betas) wind up having to make substantial sacrifices for that it be viable.

This may come across as an insult, and I don’t mean it so, but someone’s got to say it anyway, if for no other reason than for someone (else) to debate a definite answer to it: if he’s N>30, he’s got some serious alpha cred, and women with alphas practically fall all over themselves to convince themselves that He Truly Loves Me And Only Me. On what concrete grounds, then, do you (or anyone else) say that high male Ns don’t affect their ability to bond with women? I mean, between you and Roosh, whose word on the matter should I trust?,/blockquote>

I don’t read Roosh’s site, so I don’t know exactly what he says.

I’m going to answer your question in the spirit of trying to contribute to the general knowledge base that we are all operating from. If Dalrock judges this to be TMI, he can delete my comment.

My husband maintained a soft harem beginning at 15. He married me when he was 23, but kept the rotating harem until age 32, when I finally busted him on his philandering by presenting him with divorce papers. We didn’t yet have huge assets at that point like we have now, just one kid and a little house, yet he still was adamantly against divorce even though it wouldn’t have cost him much. That is one reason I don’t believe his ability to bond with me emotionally was affected by his constant infidelity. He never left me or even considered doing so, and he had many (many) offers.

I didn’t get the whole thing about alpha widows when I stumbled into the manosphere – I mean, I’d had a few boyfriends before I got married, and I had no trouble bonding with my husband. It sounded like BS to me. After awhile I understood it was because I married my alpha. At 32 he had the big Jesus meet-up and chose to leave the alpha-cad behavior behind. It’s taken awhile for him to get the balance right – he freaked out and went major-beta for a bit, and I turned into a holy nightmare of a bitch, with a side-helping of Christianese shaming language and frigidity. He’s since become I guess what we could call a Scripture alpha – he does what the Bible says regardless of the cost, including putting me back into my correct position in the hierarchy. Our marriage is very, very good now, but I do not tell this story to show how smart I was in taming the alpha. I tell this story more as a cautionary Don’t try this at home, kids tale.

Wow, SSM. That was a cautionary tale. I’m glad you guys are on good ground now. My courtship wasn’t a fairy tale either, LOL. I’ll spare the details. One anecdote is enough for one thread. This describes my husband well also:

he does what the Bible says regardless of the cost, including putting me back into my correct position in the hierarchy.

Sadly, most of the women I know who are married to very strong men married men who were not believers at the time of the marriage, including me. I don’t know what to make of that. Or may be I do.

@ Gabrilella
“Life sucks and you are a spoiled brat if you try to make it suck less” makes zero sense.”

I didn’t say this. Quote me and refute what I said, like I did for you, twice.

You are right, I don’t know what you have done, been through etc… but you made a ridiculous statement,

“Too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect cheapens the meaning of marriage. Of course I want to be useful but I also want to be a person. I greatly dislike seeing men and women treated in a dehumanizing fashion where their value is reduced to their usefulness. ”

Prove wrong my assertion, life is binary. If you are a Christian you go to heaven or hell. If you are not then there is no right and wrong, there is absolutely not final moral authority, so it reverts to utility. These assertions are bullheadedly true. Deal with truth first before you mis-quote me and argue a point I didn’t make.

I agree with you, and unfortunately a casualty of that battle will be what feminists refer to as ‘patriarchy’ which is premised on the mans obligation to lead. A man being able to say NO, MAYBE or I don’t feel like it is not something the so-called ‘lady mrms’ are prepared to give up, as it still forms part of the feminine privilege.

All ‘lady mrms’ are of the opinion that they want the privileges of female along with the total responsibility put back upon the man, it is utterly reactionary and orthodox. When the moment comes, they will not be on our side. Thus, ‘assets’ they may be at this time, they will never be allies when we start our own long march through the institutions. They too, will be a casualty of the new paradigm.

Reading Gabriela’s comments remind me of reading feminist websites. Regardless of the actual subject matter (no matter how dry, cerebral or non-sex related), the topic eventually centers around sex. When the topic is actually sex-related (even if the topic is as bland as, “Why do we still believe in saving sex for commitment?), it always becomes a series of rants about rape/forcible-coerced sex/submission or rebellion from submission.

Eg. This thread has been centered on the idea that women use involuntary celibacy as a control tactic. Gabriela has brought up “degrading sexual activities”, “the unfairness of insufficient child support for women who get knocked up/leave marriages”, and is now spiraling around the idea of “intramarital rape” (three topics that have little to do with the main idea of this post: men would be happier in marriage if they had more sex with their wives.)

Her fixation on those topics reeks of projection and secret desire. Its unnerving.

You are confusing me with someone else. I think several commenters must be blurring together for you because I didn’t mention rape or CS and I have not talked about degrading sexual activities anytime recently.

“All ‘lady mrms’ are of the opinion that they want the privileges of female along with the total responsibility put back upon the man, it is utterly reactionary and orthodox.”

– This is what I fear most. And women always get their way. What will form is some sort of bastardized patriarchy where men have all the responsibilities but women still retain some of the privileges of feminism such as divorce theft. Pussy whipped or pussy starved American men would be only too eager to accommodate their female masters.

Entropy is my god- I am not really following you. You seem to be saying that I should nto have a romanticized view of life because life is cruel. Now you are saying for me to prove…what? That life isn’t cruel?

Maybe I just need to clarify my point of view. I am to use an analogy. Lets say human beings are like patients in a hospital all suffering from various diseases and illnesses. Some people are lepers, some people have kidney stones, others just have a broken finger. Some of these patients are more useful than others..depending on the severity of their illness. Some will make a full recovery while others will just get worse and die. The Good doctors treats everybody..the sick and getting sicker..the invalids who are of no use to anyone..as well as the people who will make a full recovery.

The utilitarian view is the help the people who will make a full recovery and to hell with everyone else. Nobody is without any metaphorical illness..we all have sins and personality flaws and baggage from our past that influences our present. When we are CHOOSING our spouse their utility to us should be relevant, but once we are married we are in for good. Even if they become an invalid and are no longer of any use to us at all. We pray for their recovery but we don’t cast them away.

That is how I understand Corinthians 13.

“4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

We already have that system, as you can see it is unsustainable. We are in the middle of the ‘man up 2.0’ right now. If that trend continues unabated the end result will be demographic collapse and a decline in living standards to those found in Brazil. A small (5% at most) outrageously right population and a great slum of poor ‘choice mothers’ living in fear of REAL rape and violence.

When we are CHOOSING our spouse their utility to us should be relevant, but once we are married we are in for good. Even if they become an invalid and are no longer of any use to us at all. We pray for their recovery but we don’t cast them away.

This is all good and dandy, as long as the law upholds it. As soon as there is a legal loophole, you have problems, which is what society is current facing. Not only is there the actual legal loophole of ‘no fault’ divorce but the idea of ‘female empowerment’ through divorce that is parroted around by media and movie entertainment. That, right there, is the ENTIRE reason a blog like this exists. To highlight the massive scale of frivolous divorce and the damage caused by female empowerment, to the detriment of men and family. If you have not cottoned onto this yet, I highly suspect your actual sincerity…

When this blog points out the problems I generally agree. When commenters try and prescribe a solution that contradicts scripture I disagree. And it isn’t even because I think I can change anyone’s mind but because I think the thousands and thousands of lurkers might benefit to see an alternative point of view represented.

Whether its male or female, when a relationship problem is presented and the proposed solution is “dump the bitch/asshole” I have to chime in with my disagreement.

“We already have that system, as you can see it is unsustainable. We are in the middle of the ‘man up 2.0′ right now. If that trend continues unabated the end result will be demographic collapse and a decline in living standards to those found in Brazil. A small (5% at most) outrageously right population and a great slum of poor ‘choice mothers’ living in fear of REAL rape and violence.

The book ‘world of slums’ is a good introduction.”

– What system are you referring to? I like the present system just fine. I have mentioned before that I am glad for feminism. I don’t get to be a social outcast for not slaving myself for a woman. I realize that eventually women will once again put the burden on men and re institute patriarchy but hopefully that’s way out in the future and most men of my generation will get to live as free men. Also, I don’t think this will come about because men will en masse refuse to marry and suddenly decide to grow a spine but rather because it is American women themselves that have chosen this. You too have spoken in favor of this “brave new world”. So come on now, are you going soft on me? Hahaha

– I tried looking for the book you recommended in amazon and perhaps you meant “Planet of slums” by Mike Davis. Looks interesting, thanks.

In the last couple weeks I have seen a number of studies, reports etc. that there is a growing awareness that the 20th century is over, and above all the prosperity of the late 20th century is over. People are beginning to see that the ongoing economic crunch is the new normal, and despite what american presidental hopefuls say, the anglo-american empire is in terminal decline. The standard of living that anglo women have grown accustomed to in large part depend on the state funded by an increasingly small number of beta males, or their parents whose inheritance they will squander quickly, or their husbands who are also increasingly small in number.

This has not occurred in a vacuum, the sudden appearance of huge amounts of women in the manosphere (including the establishment of the ridiculous ‘ladymra’ subreddit website), the man-up nonsense from reactionaries and feminists alike. It is the deep foreboding made manifest that the good times for the white anglo woman are drawing to a close, the orthodoxy is attempting as we speak to maintain the status quo, it is not working.

I am in favour of the new system of the liberated man, but above all I want to make it an entrenched ideology, durable and immune from infiltrators. I might sound soft on the odd occasion NAS but my eyes are still on the prize.

I seem to be missing where Gabriella went wrong, at least in the past few posts, wherein it seemed to me pretty clear that she was saying that people – very much including women – have a duty, whether they recognize it or uphold it or not, to remain loyal to their spouses in spite of their inevitable failings. The correct response, as far as I can tell, should be ‘absolutely right – now remember that and do that and try to convince your sisters of this ‘no excuses’ stand as well, before it’s too late.’

…as for romance, I suspect she was talking about the charm of ‘you and me against all odds’ – of staying together so even through the worst of times. Which counts as romantic.

“Young adulthood is about having fun and taking risks while everyone should settle and marry in their 30s.

That is, of course, the feminine imperative. Men as a group (especially betas) wind up having to make substantial sacrifices for that it be viable.”

No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**. As that message gets out, things will somewhat self-correct. The problems that led to the ignorance in the first place will still be with us.

As I said above, Gabby’s problem is not that she’s wrong (who knows?)–it’s that it’s hard for many to understand. Case in point: romantic. I think it’s perfectly reasonable, when discussing sex and sexual relations to interpret “romantic” in the vulgar, unless the speaker takes the pains to indicate in which sense they meant it.

The word romance once referred to the tendency of the medieval mind to idealize the Golden Age of Ancient Rome.

But again, OUR tendency to abandon the real in pursuit of the ideal surfaces here. One can make sure one’s marriage is mutually beneficial while still striving for something more. The New Testament doesn’t cancel the Old, it fulfills and extends it.

No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**.

This is at the crux of so many issues. I think the manosphere should explore it more. For example, how can women so thoroughly read the situation incorrectly? And what could be done to fix it? Because of this stupidity, everybody loses (except cats)

by ‘second definition’, I meant unrealistic, fanciful, etc., in the eyes of the world – which is what advises people in such cases to ‘look out for number one’, not to stay together’. But third works too, yes.

“This is at the crux of so many issues. I think the manosphere should explore it more. For example, how can women so thoroughly read the situation incorrectly? And what could be done to fix it? Because of this stupidity, everybody loses (except cats)”

The old rule is never to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity, and I think that may be wise even if malice (on the part of third parties, largely) may be closer to the truth. It is easier to admit acting stupidly than maliciously, and if the first priority is getting the behavior straightened out, and it is, that should be the overriding consideration.

Desiderius (writes) “No, the biggest sacrifice made in following that life script is made by the woman who squanders the height of her SMV* (18-25) without cashing it in on the MMP**. As that message gets out, things will somewhat self-correct. The problems that led to the ignorance in the first place will still be with us.”

Slyvia Ann Hewlett started to address some of these problems in her book “The Baby Bust”. I believe it needs to be upper class woman & their problems becoming grave in order for the establishment to recognize their errors.

However it is first met with extreme denial and feminist/marxist re-writing of history & fact. If you Google her book you will find that it has been met with a matra that its a “myth” ..””every thing is fine, nothing to see here… just maintain your old behavior…nothing to worry about!!””

The mass media gave it a once over & downplayed its thesis as much as possible. Much like the “boys on the side article”..and ignored or downplayed sexual liceance and feminism’s responsibility in it.

This is feminists prefered approach… Rosin is coming out with a book about the decline of males and the rise of woman… it is being hyped… I think this is feminists next approach to the problems they have created..

It is imperative that they control the narative and “get out ahead” of the problems they created so they can portray them in ways that mislead the audience and thwart attempts at really addressing them…

Its a scary phase were propaganda will be the prefered weapon.. Grain shortages…the problem is counter revolutionaries… production shortages…counter revolutionaries….not enough coal this winter…counter revolutionaries….no medicine at the hospital….counter revolutionaries…

@Gabriella — “Whether its male or female, when a relationship problem is presented and the proposed solution is ‘dump the bitch/asshole’ I have to chime in with my disagreement.”

I stated that it was fraud for a man to get married and then have to deal with a sexless relationship. I bemoaned the failure of the church to teach 1 Cor 7 even when it fit the context of a lesson. I never threatened divorce and no one else suggested it. And you single handedly derailed the tread with your off the wall reaction.

Congratulations. What could have been an interesting discussion is now all about you.

@Opus “Promiscuity in women often seems to hide great insecurity or inferority” & “Promiscuous women really do assume that because they can sleep with men, effortlessly, that all men are doing likewise – and thus a high partner count in a woman is not in any way off-putting to a man.”

I have also found this to be true on both counts. Women are quite shocked, insulted, and dont handle rejection well – they become downright nasty and insulting.
My goal in life is to make it through life with the least amount of intimate partners not the most (quality vs. quantity and simply opportunity cost).
It depends on what one is looking for and what is the desired outcome. Why waste time with the high nth ? She will not be a good partner, wife, or mother.
If one is looking to strictly satisfy a glandular urge and one never wishes to get married / kids route – then have at it and “hit it”.
One cant have it both ways.
To think one can lead a promiscuous lifestyle and then settle down and get married. It simply won’t work – there is a appetite and a acquired taste that is universal for both sexes.

The last thing I want is a promiscuous partner – it is a major turn off – I’m not big into sloppy n’ths. Accompanied with a promiscuity is a major emotional, mental, family, sexual, and a major slew of deal-breaker hangups. I simply dont want to be deal with – the opposite sex is irrational enough. Some men would simply rather remain single rather than be forced to choose a feminized American woman.

LOL farm boy… That would be funny. I’m reminded of that Simpsons episode with the Duff beer ad when Homer was trying to quit drinking. There was a bunch of feminists chanting “down with sexism!” and then some guys sprayed Duff beer over them and they turned into a bunch of bikini clad tarts. Perhaps a similar thing could happen at a Code Pink spectacle.

“The last thing I want is a promiscuous partner – it is a major turn off – I’m not big into sloppy n’ths. Accompanied with a promiscuity is a major emotional, mental, family, sexual, and a major slew of deal-breaker hangups. I simply dont want to be deal with – the opposite sex is irrational enough. Some men would simply rather remain single rather than be forced to choose a feminized American woman.”

Uh, we’d prefer a feminized one, its the masculinized ones that are the problem. Now, at least. I was gender-bent too in younger days. I bailed on women for not being ambitious enough. A lot of us contributed to the problems, and for me at least, I don’t see any way out other than confession and repentance and trusting God to renew us together.

“Slyvia Ann Hewlett started to address some of these problems in her book “The Baby Bust”. I believe it needs to be upper class woman & their problems becoming grave in order for the establishment to recognize their errors.”

Yeah, the problems in the SMP start at the top and filter down, but that doesn’t mean that the solutions can’t come from the middle and clue the top in once they realize they’re falling behind – nothing the top fears more than that. From my experience with teens, I’d say a lot of these things are already on the way to self-correcting, and the reactionary (literally, they react to what they can no longer deny) parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt.

To be clear, and I can imagine that if a Susan Walsh (and I absolutely love Susan and what she is working to accomplish, and if y’all have a problem with that, you can kiss my hairy ass) type were reading this, she’d jump up and say “You’re trying to control women’s behavior!”, I’d say:

Their behavior is already being controlled, and in a way that is destructive to men, children, and ultimately the women themselves. I’m cool with a flexible norm that makes room for the Marie Curies and Susan Walshs of the world to set the world on its ear. But making them the norm is causing a lot of heartache to the women who primarily seek to fulfill their traditional role of being the leaders in the moral sphere, of forming the character of the next generation, of supporting the men who looked so formidable when the feminists set out to best them.

@Desiderius “confession and repentance and trusting God to renew us together.”

Simple question – who is coming on strong for “repentance” ???
It certainly isn’t mainstream evangelical American grace-loving “crossless / discipleless Christians who are waiting to be “raptured” so they can escape tribulation since they have taken the four steps of salvation.
Quite the opposite is coming from the pulpit – men are told to “man up” and take on venal strumphets.

So if no one is telling the truth about repentance then how can one be brought back and renewed ?

“So if no one is telling the truth about repentance then how can one be brought back and renewed ?”

Catwoman yearned above all for a clean slate. Only one way to that. Churchill was very unpopular in the 30’s, then when the need was recognized, he was embraced. Preachers of repentance are out there, we’ve just been shunned, the need not being felt.

Allow me to point out a heck of a whole lot of bible history. Beside there being lots and lots of stories of one person being right and the majority being wrong.
Preachers of repentance have a very strong tract record of getting themselves, stoned, killed, beheaded, crucified, sawn in two when the populations is immoral.

Though the illustration of Churchill is a a nice anecdote – it is out of context and since England during that time was a moral Christian nation compared to now.
Consider the holocaust of the Jews conducted by the Germans which was the birthplace of the Reformation – this is a great example of a immoral nation.

Most Christians have “compartmentalized thinking” when it comes to “repentance”.

I’m not convinced this is the case, but even if it is, I see no reason to believe that women would choose to relegate each other back into the house; under the authority of fathers until marriage. That’s what we’re talking about. Short of widespread violence forcing women strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.

Another thing: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, you say. What cradle?

Btw one more – if “I’d say a lot of these things are already on the way to self-correcting, and the reactionary (literally, they react to what they can no longer deny) parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt…. parts of society – the media, academia, government – will be forced to adapt.”

Sounds good on paper and logical but human nature is hardly logical when women come into power and society becomes immoral. This has happened before and this is not the first time.

Are there any examples in history of “self correcting” or forced adaptation occurred ? Nineva is one of the only examples to my knowledge of repentance ( and it was by a very reluctant preacher).
Are there any other examples of “self correction” in history ? Did Rome self correct ? What did Christians affect Rome ? With their blood and unwillingness to compromise.
That doesnt sound much like the typical American Christian who is practicing for the rapture by jumping up / down next to their pew to avoid tribulation.

People have a tendency not to change unless there a foot on their throat constricting their air supply however there are some who still refuse to repent – there are plenty examples of ignoring repentance from Noah to the book of the book of Revelation despite righteous preachers ( ie Noah and to the prove point Christ referred to Noah).
Regardless, the “ecclesia” was refined during this process of persecution and was in the hight of power – quite paradoxical.
Allow me to suggest the scriptures show things / people dont change.

There does indeed seem to be some inverse rule that promiscuity (in both men and women – but it is far more damaging in a woman) is a sure sign of the likelihood of relationship instability. This is particularily sad when one can see otherwise fine and rare qualities in the woman concerned. Promiscuity and lack of impulse control go together. Promiscuity is a tap [fawcet] that cannot easily be switched off.

Rejection, as you say, is something women are not used to – and thus seems to be doubly humiliating to them – which reminds me of the two weeks I once spent with some half-dozen others in a villa near St Tropez. Amongst us vacationers were a heroic single mum and her six year old Brat. On the last evening I stayed up late, talking with the single mum in the living room – the doors open on the warmest of nights; the sound of crickets chirping; the pool glistening in the moonlight – the most romantic of settings. The next morning I had somehow metamorphosed into someone persona non grata. Only later did I realise that just having stayed up late, alone and talking to me, was her sign of sexual availability – but I did not find her physically or personally attractive – and so if I had any inkling of her wishes – and I don’t think I did – I chose to fail to see them. It is inconceivable that had our desires been reversed, that (whatever my then disappointment) I would have reacted in the like manner.

Man Up is already in the campaigns. I heard Just the other day Ann Romney telling an audience all the things Mitt has done FOR women…..its madness, its a demographic with huge influence, no coherent rational set of needs for anything remotely resembling true so called greater good, and less than zero accountability.
It is the most harmful demographic we have. Since suffrage, always has been, always will. One vote per homestead put men in a mitigating position, yet imagine today the irony, never happen but if suddenly we reverted to one vote per family, the policies would swing even more wildly towards pandering to women because in the main there is little in this country and is not controlled by women. This is not to say every single woman, let me get my NAWALT disclaimer in….but well more than enough run their roosts that the white knight demographic would be worse. It already is, its just not overt as it would be if the voting were done by household.
Everywhere we turn in life, unless we are sequestered somehow, we smack the wall of ignorance that is man bad woman good.
Like him and his politics or not….thats not the issue, but Gov Christie made a great point saying we have focused too much on love and too little on respect. I suspect he is a man up dude like the rest, but he blundered into a profound truth like the broken clock twice per day.
Before someone cites a biblical admonishment about love realize that Im taking his words in a manner that doesnt conflict with the call to love others at all. Misunderstanding that is what gets everything all screwed up from the foundations of marriage per Eph 5, to the toothpick and log, to the judge not lest ye…..and on and on. Its all twisted , and his words conveyed truth even if he didnt mean to the way that it did.

“Sorry I’m a bit late in responding today. Because, again, alimony and half the assets aren’t a quid pro quo for sex. No matter how much you happen to like sex and your ex-wife happens to need money. Wives are not prostitutes. ”

They do not have to be quid pro quo. It does not change the nature of my question.

Wives may not be prostitutes, but my questions (listed again below in parantheses) points out that husbands are slaves, even post divorce. So why are women allowed to withdraw sex, but men are not allowed to withdraw their labor or efforts?

The standard answer is “it’s her body and she can say no”. But, his body still belongs to her in that he must perform physical labor for her benefit?

So again, I posit the question, by is she allowed to withdraw what he values, yet he is unable to withdraw what she values? Why is she entitled to alimony, half of assets (even if they derived from him) when he is not entitled to “blow-job night” post-divorce?)

Can’t you get companionship from other men? People you meet from hobbies or from your work for example?

I’m trying. I’m trying. But I have a very demanding (and well-paid) job. I’m trying to get a more relaxing job so I have time to devote to hobbies, meeting new people, etc.

And surely there are other ways to find female companionship besides marriage?

Of course, there are. In the country I live, there are no shortage of women wanting to be with a man like me.

Is the problem of companionship in old age only a problem for men or for women (natural social creatures) too?

It’s worse in men. I hate to say that and I know that there is this cliche in the manosphere about the crazy cat lady, etc. etc

The fact is women are more sociable creatures so they are able to get companionship from friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. A man is only allowed to express his emotional self with a woman. For example, women talk about emotions, men talk about things (politics, sports and work).

You see this in breakups. A woman who has been dumped is comforted by everybody. She can express her grief with friends, family, co-workers, etc. A man who has been dumped has to tough it up and move on. All his feelings of grief have to be bottled up. Nobody cares, even if his own family, even if his own friends.

Without an emotional outlet, loneliness for men is worse than for women. Of course, women whine and whine and write articles so it appears to be the opposite.

I suppose things are different for your generation and for the country you live in. Everyone just got married like you say. But I think there would be a LOT of single people for my generation. I think a man without the responsibility and burden of supporting a family would have a lot of free time and resources to pursue all sorts of interests and entertainment opportunities. But I do wish I knew what it is like living at that age.

I can only speak for myself. Living is not bad. You have become accustomed to being single. You do whatever you want whenever you want. You have female companionship. Everybody sees you as a middle age man but you feel young at heart. I keep fit and comfortable with myself.

There is a void, though. Is this everything? What will be happen in my old age? I am screwing it up by giving up marriage and kids? In my country, everybody is married and raising kids so the sensation of being wrong is more evident.

I don’t really trust most old people from this country. They together with women seem to conspire to do what is in the worst interest of young men. So it is very difficult to talk frankly about these issues and have my many questions answered. But I greatly respect your opinion and thank you for sharing your experiences and wisdom.

Thank you, Nas. I really appreciate your words of encouragement and if some of my words are useful to you, I am really happy. I would like for you to learn from older men’s experiences like mine so you don’t make mistakes. Being a young man in Western society is a risky business and nobody is on your side.

This is my problem. I am dating a girl who is an excellent christian and very devout, but I seriously am considering walking away from the relationship. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but I just cannot rectify the risk in my head. It would be great to have a family, but why should I bother if all the responsibility for leading a family with christian values is on my shoulders and none of the authority to do it is.

I found the first part of the story from Barbara Rainy, I’d over looked it. It shows the build up to the best moment in her life, when her husband said its cool if they never have sex again because he loves her for more than (spoken with spittle) THAAAAT!

Here is an excerpt
—————————————————————-
While the setting was close to perfect, the two people were not. And we were about to find out how different our needs were.

Dennis began lighting some candles. He was making assumptions that seemed logical to him. There were no children to interrupt us . . . the room was warm and quiet . . . it was the perfect time for love.

I also had some assumptions. Even though we’d had a relaxing day, we hadn’t had much time alone for the two of us to just talk. Since my health scare and pregnancy, I had become fearful, timid, confused and introspective. I hardly knew what I was feeling or how to express it.

So on this perfect night in this perfect location, what I needed was not what my husband needed. I wasn’t opposed to making love eventually, but first I needed him to help me sort through what I was feeling and reassure me that everything would be okay in my life.

How did we resolve our differing needs?

I’ll finish my story tomorrow!

Discuss
Can you relate to the story I’ve just told? What do you do when one of you is “in the mood” and the other is not?

Pray
Ask God to give each of you a discerning spirit so that you can know how to meet each other’s needs regarding sex and intimacy.
————————————————————————-

I know Im a meany for saying this, but I do not nor have I ever had a flipping clue what it mens when people say these pop psychology derived things like “”I needed him to help me sort through what I was feeling and reassure me that everything would be okay in my life.””
I dont get it, I dont get “find myself”, “know who you are” and a host of other things similar.

This does not mean that I am literally clueless to whats being said. Nor does it mean I think all things ought to be clinical , sterile and straightforward. But I will never be convinced that these are not mostly used as tools of manipulation, even if inadvertently.

So one achieves that feeling that “everything will be ok with her life”. Will that need to be done again tomorrow, or the next time? Is it a burden that a man can carry for another person? Is it seeking security from the wrong place? Is it setting up a reward for pandering a maelstrom of emotion that is always a hair away from manifesting into a Category 5? See this is essentially what the couple at the His Needs Her Needs seminar modeled. No matter what the details were, the model is consistent. Some kind of major tectonic alignment must occur for her to “give herself” and anything, ANYTHING, can jigger them out of skew and ruin it.

At the end they pose the discussion questions. What to do when moods do not align?

If you develop “game elements”, the moral aspects of game, you might do fine. You would have to be the judge as to whether that will work in this case. Seems to me the only way to keep the law at bay in this day and age.

DH: Why would any woman want to get married if it means her husband has the legal right to force her to have sex against her will and physically coerce her to do what he wants? I like men plenty but I don’t like ‘em that much.

You misunderstand profoundly. In the old order of things, consent to marriage was understood to be an open-ended sexual consent. You said one “Yes”, at the altar, and that settled it for life. She did not have to be “forced” into sex because she understood she was expected to put out whenever he wanted. But nobody was forced to marry — any woman who did not wish to have a husband pawing at her for the rest of her life, was perfectly free to remain single.

What I’d like to see in a seminar like that is a woman stand up and say, “Sex is not a reward or a punishment. Sex is not a tool that I use to keep my husband under my control. I once behaved this way and I now see it as being a sinful thing that destroyed our intimacy and undermined our relationship. I have repented of this… and now… as far as possible… my answer is yes to any and all of my husband’s sexual requests. This has been far from burdensome. In fact our life is together is so joyful since making that change, I am ashamed that I wasted so many years before this treating my husband like a dog… banishing him to the couch whenever he displeased me. Now I understand just how brazenly disrespectful that was. Please pray for me that I might never fall into that hateful mode of living ever again….”

Hey Joseph, you’ve come to the right blog to find out, that’s for sure.

Here’s a starting point. Ask her how she ‘feels’ about such things as the high divorce rate, sex in marriage, reasons for divorce, leadership in marriage, rearing of children, career, family, etc… you can ask whatever else is important to you.

If she’s young and a devout Christian, the time to ask these things would be now. If you’re serious about her, talk to her parents too.

The point to asking all these questions above, is to determine where she stands on issues relating to your responsibility for leading her and your future family, if you decide to have one, and how she will maintain her submissiveness in such a marriage setting; which then allows you to wield the authority needed to lead correctly and garner respect from her and your children.

I used to try to argue with the Christian women who called sex icing on the cake, I’d tell them no, sex is a coequal thing, sex should simple BE in marriage, as Rooinek said it was settled at I DO.
Christian women and white knights have been trained to see things or hear things that are not there. For example, when I say that sex should just be, they read/hear a man should get sex on tap, spicy sex on tap, anytime anywhere he wants it no matter what. That is far easier to sanctimoniously oppose, so that is the Christian frame of today. Imagine truly believing that about anything, imagine how you would react when the thing in question was mentioned, defensively, derisively. Its all packaged and filed and sits comfortably that way. And…..its all jacked up wrong.

1 Cor 7: 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband [but only after he’s jumped through enough hoops to show that he is in submission to her… and even then, only after he helps his wife sort through whatever she is feeling… but of course if she can claim that she’s either not in the mood or not in love with him, then she gets a pass on this and everything is his fault.]

Sure lavazza, I’m still not going to tell him outright to dump her, just because of the culture that American men and women find themselves in. If I put myself in his position, with a young, Christian girl, who is actually devout; I wouldn’t just throw it away either. He has a tough choice to make and the best starting point to begin making that choice would be to ask her to be honest with him about her view of their future together.

“This is my problem. I am dating a girl who is an excellent christian and very devout, but I seriously am considering walking away from the relationship. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but I just cannot rectify the risk in my head. It would be great to have a family, but why should I bother if all the responsibility for leading a family with christian values is on my shoulders and none of the authority to do it is.”

If you walk away without cause you will be contributing to the problem, not helping to solve it. Many women in the past have done what you propose to do here due to the doubt caused in their mind by feminist propaganda. For you to do likewise would not be manly.

FH: He has to look both back on her track record, perhaps by interviewing her father about her attitude to male authority, and forward (on the situation they will be living in etc.). And take a hard look on his own ability (Marriage Game) to form a woman’s mind to stop her from falling into the culture’s pit falls.

“If you walk away without cause you will be contributing to the problem, not helping to solve it. Many women in the past have done what you propose to do here due to the doubt caused in their mind by feminist propaganda. For you to do likewise would not be manly.”

“A man’s got to know his limitations.” No shame in acknowledging that you don’t have what it takes to make counter culture happen in your immediate vicinities. Even non wordly sages are advised by the ancient texts to move to safe settings with good opportunities for alms.

Thank you, Desiderius and Feminist Hater, for injecting some sanity and a balance by not telling this young man to just dump this young woman who, for all we know and we know nothing about her, may be an excellent prospective wife and mother.

Figure out your principles and then live your life with fierce devotion to those principles. Don’t do anything because you are afraid of the results. Whether its getting married or going your own way…make a choice and stand by it regardless of the personal cost. That is what it means to be a strong man/woman.

“Allow me to point out a heck of a whole lot of bible history. Beside there being lots and lots of stories of one person being right and the majority being wrong.
Preachers of repentance have a very strong tract record of getting themselves, stoned, killed, beheaded, crucified, sawn in two when the populations is immoral.”

Our culture tends to be more passive-aggressive, and to be fair, I don’t believe we’ve reached that level of immorality and are unlikely to do so, but the price has been steep nonetheless, and not one that I’ve paid alone.

“Though the illustration of Churchill is a a nice anecdote – it is out of context and since England during that time was a moral Christian nation compared to now.”

Interesting time for you to switch to grading on a curve. They were not a moral nation in the 30’s. There are sins of omission as well as commission, often accompanied by pretty lies.

This was not a terminal condition, and need not be for us either. Things were different in the 40’s.

“Consider the holocaust of the Jews conducted by the Germans which was the birthplace of the Reformation – this is a great example of a immoral nation.”

As was the willful blindness to what was going on on the part of those who could have done something about it in other nations. They were too busy chasing their ideal of a world without war to notice the real world still in their midst. The primal will assert itself until bested – our ignorance is its bliss, in sex every bit as much as in war.

Thank you, Desiderius and Feminist Hater, for injecting some sanity and a balance by not telling this young man to just dump this young woman who, for all we know and we know nothing about her, may be an excellent prospective wife and mother.

I disagree. If he’s unwilling to commit, then we need to know what the reasons are.

1) He doesn’t love her. Don’t marry someone you’re not in love with.
2) She’s not a good catch, or has displayed some warning signs. Don’t marry a known problem.
3) He’s chicken. Marriage is no place for chickenry; especially in this moral and legal climate. The danger and damage is real, for both of them.

We’d all like to see another success story, but I’m not sure that’s what we’re looking at.

“‘A man’s got to know his limitations.’ No shame in acknowledging that you don’t have what it takes to make counter culture happen in your immediate vicinities. Even non wordly sages are advised by the ancient texts to move to safe settings with good opportunities for alms.”

We are more than conquerors through Christ who loved us – have been for 2,000 years. I think we can manage a few healthy marriages. I know of several in my community, including some Joseph’s age. Our host has one himself.

The problem of course, is that people lie on the internet. I was recently a groomsman in my oldest brothers wedding (lol don’t get me started on having to read a speech at a wedding with my views on women and marriage). I had never met his wife before and he had said much about how good of a Catholic she is and so on and so on.

By the end of the night I had the bride on the patio of the yacht club, cigar in mouth, double fisting vodka orange juice. Some ‘devout’ girl she turned out to be.

Treat carefully Joseph, make sure you aren’t lying to yourself about how devout and/or high quality she is, as men have a tendency to accept a whole lot of failed females to get at her piss flaps. You should be coming from a default position of ‘no marriage, no cohabitation’ until she PROVES herself in ALL the ways you want her to.

One failure and marriage should be off the table. The western world’s future does not depend on YOU getting married, and you do not owe your parents a grandchild. Despite the man-up garbage posted above me. You wouldn’t be having these doubts if there wasn’t something you noticed that bothered you about her, and you are entitled to sever if you desire.

He didn’t say he didn’t love her, though it’s possible that he doesn’t. He didn’t say that there were red flags. He simply said that he was risk averse, which is why I support your third point. Marriage ain’t for the weak male or female, and it never was.

Well, after I posted my comment, I saw that I had been asked by a friend what I thought of Joseph’s conundrum; a moment too late, it seems. Perhaps I should rephrase.

Joseph: You are being foolish. Asking strangers (implicitly) whether you should marry this girl or not is a trap for all of us. Neither the Manosphere nor Game can answer that question–nor should they try. There are the three people actually in a Christian marriage: You, your woman, and God.

1. Do I want to be committed to this woman? Do you desire her only for yourself, but above all are you willing to give her to God?

2. Are you worth it, Woman? Does she desire you, but refrain from submitting fully from that desire because of her commitment to God above you?

3. Do you approve, God? If you are faithful in asking, He’ll take care of addressing the explanation.

I know that women are not capable of deep introspection or even thinking beyond what is plainly in front of your goddamn face, but you really push the limits of ‘dumb female’ by not even considering what her behaviour REPRESENTS when she is on her own wedding night acting like a worthless club whore.

In my responses to Joseph’s decision, I take nothing for granted. It seems like he loves her. It seems like she’s a good woman. It seems like his problem is lack of information.

The fact is we don’t know if he loves her: only he does–or doesn’t, which is an answer itself.

The fact is we don’t know if she’s a good woman: we don’t know her at all.

The fact is that as far as we know, these two people are delaying real marital satisfaction they could be finding with other people. I’m against dangling others until we feel “comfortable”. I’m for marriage where he says, “If there weren’t laws against it, I would kidnap this woman!”, and she says, “I wish he would kidnap me already!”

The fact is that as far as we know, these two people are delaying real marital satisfaction they could be finding with other people. I’m against dangling others until we feel “comfortable”. I’m for marriage where he says, “If there weren’t laws against it, I would kidnap this woman!”, and she says, “I wish he would kidnap me already!”

I agree, and I think your direct response to Joseph about the folly of asking strangers to offer guidance on something so vital was excellent and offered him good advice.

Desiderius: What I am telling him is to use introspection to see if he has what it takes to make that happen (with a level of certainty he’s comfortable with) in his culture with that woman.

Navel-gazing introspection can be worse than worthless; especially for the sort of man who wants answers from an Internet forum. This is the trap he seems to have set for himself.

No. The decision of whether or not to marry is a Gordian Knot: You do not untangle it. You cut the sonunvabitch in half, or move on. Either he burns with passion for her, or he does not. All thinking should go into how, under the duress of this fire, he does not defile himself or her. As this pertains to culture, that might mean moving away, or setting clear boundaries.

In all of this, he ought to be consulting her on what her goals are. Dalrock’s Interviews for Potential Wife are an excellent primer. Again: Don’t resort to introspection, but inquire of her, and discern what she says, and how it matches with how she lives her life.

I hope he takes Canes advice and ignores the likes of YBM whose tone is so consistently antagonistic and attitude towards women so nasty he can hardly be trusted to give advice that is seriously concerned with Josephs happiness.

General rule to follow when it comes to listening to people: Misery loves company so unhappy people will generally try to help you make choices that will make you miserable. This is true for men and women.

The fact is that this woman DOES have flaws. Whether those flaws are deal breakers depends on the individual.

I broke-up with a fiance because he did not burn with passion the way Cane says a man and woman should before they marry. I felt something was “off”…like perhaps he was just trying to “man up and marry”. I know I am not perfect by a long shot and I have my quirks but whether those quirks make your life hell on earth or you consider them part of my charm depends on how infatuated you are. The man I ended up marrying was very much infatuated with me and even a decade later he tolerates me pretty well.

I think of picking a spouse as a bit like picking a puppy. You do your research on breeds, you do a few behavioral tests before you take them home, but for the most part picking a dog that you will love forever is a heart thing. You just see the dog and you can’t stand the idea of not taking that dog home with you and making it part of your family. So you do. And you love that dog even when it shits on your carpet and chews up your shoes. It is a crass analogy but it is the best I can come up with.

I know that to a gener raunch anglo-skank, getting rawdogged in a nightclub bathroom by the local mma crew is empowering and is what marks you as a good future wife. But to people who were not born into the disgrace that is anglo culture, a bride acting as though she gives blow jobs for shots while wearing a white wedding dress is somewhat distasteful. I don’t expect you or the rest of the anglo-american coffee klatch contingent to understand this since you probably act the same way.

I’m not convinced this is the case, but even if it is, I see no reason to believe that women would choose to relegate each other back into the house; under the authority of fathers until marriage.”

That is a separate, but not entirely unrelated issue. Many young women (and men) are already moving back into the house for economic reasons, and I’ve seen them respond well to legitimate male authority (in a classroom environment), if they are convinced that that authority has their best interests in mind and mutual respect has been earned.

This generation of young people is not anti-authoritarian, its just that many of the authorities who are currently over them are lacking themselves or are often encouraging them to act in ways that are not in their own best interest. There is a reason The Hunger Games is so popular.

“That’s what we’re talking about.”

That’s what you’re talking about. I’m talking about having your man’s back, and thus having a man whose back you have. That doesn’t rule out him having yours either…

“Short of widespread violence forcing women strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.”

If it came to that, I’d be fighting on the other side, so no, I do not either.

“Another thing: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, you say. What cradle?”

Yeah, that’s what is driving the whole thing. As a wise man once said, we’ll see.

Christian women and white knights have been trained to see things or hear things that are not there. For example, when I say that sex should just be, they read/hear a man should get sex on tap, spicy sex on tap, anytime anywhere he wants it no matter what.

It’s a typical feminist gambit. Ramp things up to the most extreme levels and then portray that as the normal that is being advocated. Mizz Gregoire’s latest hit piece on Christian Biblical submission is an excellent example of it being applied, especially since that’s one of the first stops. To quote Dalrock in the OP, with her down is up and left is right. If she writes the later piece she promised on it, I’m sure it will equate to her usual answer as was Mohler’s: Wifely Biblical submission is treating your husband like a dog and dominating him.

To their credit, the comments show a couple of people calling her out on her raking of her claimed source material, which is heartening to say the least. On this topic, her supporting of the celluloid trash known as Fireproof is proof enough on where her outlook on marriage is.

(it’s really easy to make a blog career out of pointing out the false teachings and heresy of ones like Mizz Gregoire, but I resist for most part. Though a post on this tactic might be good someday.)

Empathalogicalism:Christian women and white knights have been trained to see things or hear things that are not there.

That’s because both see the world through the lens of the feminine imperative. Both want men to continuously re-prove themselves to women, to re-qualify for their “man badge”, for their alpha-enough credit.

For example, when I say that sex should just be, they read/hear a man should get sex on tap, spicy sex on tap, anytime anywhere he wants it no matter what. That is far easier to sanctimoniously oppose, so that is the Christian frame of today.

That’s like getting all worked up because a man says that breakfast and dinner should “just be there”. He shouldn’t expect eggs Benedict every morning, but he shouldn’t have to start hinting the night before “Gee, I sure would like some breakfast tomorrow”. He shouldn’t expect a five-course meal in the style of a three star Paris restaurant every night, but that doesn’t mean he should have to text her little teasing notes in the middle of the afternoon suggesting that it might be good to have some food at the end of the day.

Food. Sex. Two things men are known to need. Yeah, we need air and water, too, and we don’t physically die due to lack of sex, but even so, it’s not some kind of Super Secret Knowledge. All of this is, as I said, a manifestation of the feminine imperative: “Prove to me over and over and over again that you are good enough for me”. Yeah, well, I’m at the point to start quoting General Anthony McAuliffe on this issue. It’s long past time for women to Woman Up and deal their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the fornt yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet. Woman, you married him. He’s good enough for you. Live with it. Maybe if you quit bitching and tearing at him, he might actually do something for you.

Try this on them. Suggest that paying the rent shouldn’t just “be”, that the wife should have to seduce her husband into paying the rent, the electric bill, the water bill. See how far that flies. Oh, but that’s different. Exactly so, men’s duties are always to be met, women have no duties. Especially in Churchianity.

Imagine truly believing that about anything, imagine how you would react when the thing in question was mentioned, defensively, derisively. Its all packaged and filed and sits comfortably that way. And…..its all jacked up wrong.

Imagine believing all that, and encountering someone like us. No wonder they get so shocked and angry. Well, itty-bitty-boo. Cry me a river, here’s a canoe for you with no paddle…

Desiderius says:This generation of young people is not anti-authoritarian, its just that many of the authorities who are currently over them are lacking themselves or are often encouraging them to act in ways that are not in their own best interest. There is a reason The Hunger Games is so popular.

Listened to aging 60-something Boomers babble about The Hunger Games (THG) so far is predictable. Naturally they see it through the lens of 1968; “Oh, yeah, it’s all about standing up to The Man”. Fun thing to do: after they run down (which can take a while, it’s true) say clearly “You’re right. It is about standing up to The Man. What you miss is painfully obvious: you are The Man. Those degenerate dandies in the capitol city who bet on which young man or woman will die first? That’s how the young men and women see you. ”

Then just leave. Drop that turd into their punchbowl, and leave. Nothing the “forever young” have to say at that point is worth hearing.

Surely men have more duties than just paying the bills? Lets assume the woman works full-time and pays at least half of all the bills if not all of them. What then is the mans duties?

Your marital obligations is based entirely on the idea that men work and women sit back and enjoy the fruits of his work. But what if he doesn’t work? Or they both work equally?

I’m not trying to be argumentative for its own sake..I really want to know. I think a lot of the women who feel resentful at the obligations for sex on demand, breakfast and dinner made promptly, working out, and the the housework/childcare feel like the husband is being a bit entitled because it seems like he does less than her.

This ignores, of course, the bigger cultural issue that Authoritarianism is a BAD thing in a feminist state since it leads to the exact feminist police state that is identified so often around here. That authority will be unleashed 100% upon men, for the defense of ‘their women’ as seen here:

“If it came to that, I’d be fighting on the other side, so no, I do not either.”

Authoritarians are dangerous to men since they will conscript you and send you off to die for them. They fail to understand they are the authority that needs to be smashed.

I had an incomplete edit in that sentence about ““Short of widespread violence”. It should read:

“Short of widespread violence strongly encouraging women to make this choice, I don’t see that happening. And I’m not one for wishing that.”

What I meant by the was not men using violence to round up women and hold them captive, but that a terror of dangerous and feral men will encourage them to stay in relatively calm, patriarchal homes…homes with shotguns, and men to bear them.

You say this is a separate but related topic. I don’t see how its separate. When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, I think that was part of the reason why. She didn’t understand how much of life depended on Adam being the man. The wild will bring that more clearly into focus. I don’t think women today are any better than Eve, nor us, Adam.

Woman Up and deal their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the fornt yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet.
——————————————————————–
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This insecurity thing is so out of control its a twisted badge of honor how much she can whine about how low her self image is. Its from the same root as when women in the 50’s and 60’s had to have a therapist to be able to drop the words-my therapist said-yea simplistically its a form of narcissism but not exactly.
Just this morning a local talk radio station in Memphis has a trio, 2 men one women, and a female caller called in and was very sanguine about how she used to be…her word….fat. The female host went on a tirade at men, fathers brothers spouses about the predictable pressures MEN put on the butterflies and that everything is beautiful all the time and she needs affirmation and on and on this narrative is rote, beyond rote.
The claim she *needs to feel safe*, I have asked countless ones what that even means….would burglar bars help? The HOA will get pissed indeed. Every answer was more obfuscation and dissembling. They do not know.
Yes I know whats what is said not whats done…..but that doesnt address this problem really does it

GabriellaSurely men have more duties than just paying the bills? Lets assume the woman works full-time and pays at least half of all the bills if not all of them. What then is the mans duties?

Obviously his duties are whatever she assigns to him, because his sole purpose in life is to make her haaaaapy no matter what, because the sole reason for marriage is to make women haaaapy. He should be a good boy and do what he is told, lest his mistress yank on his choke chain.

I read Gregoire’s piece on submission posted today. Interesting that she did not focus on Eph. 5, but rather on exhorting women not to put up with verbal or physical abuse or addiction or adultery. This is a red herring. No one seriously suggests that anyone today has to tolerate abuse. The bible does not require women to tolerate abuse or adultery or addiction either.

instead, Gregoire ramps up the most extreme examples of perverting scripture, offers them up, and tells her girls that they don’t have to put up with it. That’s the easy way out. If she really wanted to give her girls some good advice, she would tell them to read and obey Ephesians 5. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church. Husbands, love your wives. Wives, repsect your husbands and submit to them.

@Deti
She won’t, of course, because she supports Marriage 2.0 enthusiastically. The natural outcome of writing such a piece is to get women to lower their standards of “being abused”. That’s why I brought up Gregoire’s support of Fireproof. To take her doctrine and extend it onward, she would see the wife in that movie as a poor abused woman who was just standing up for herself. It’s really not inconsistent with any of the other feminist hogwash, even that which pokes its head up here.

Men: All the responsibilities in marriage. Women: All the benefits. And if you dare expect ME to do anything, well….I’M ABUSED!

It is more typical for a wife to work in modern times than it is a wife to stay home. Mentioning this is not saying that the husbands job is to make her happy, but we can’t say it is a one way street and expect that to seem fair. Women owe men sex and food and whatever else he wants and he owes her a paycheck. Fine, this paradigm works IF he has a paycheck or they are not splitting paycheck duties equally.

I would say that a woman owes her husband submission and a husband owes his wife help with priorities… priorities that keep her physical, mental, and emotional health in mind. She can’t be the perfect wife, mistress, mother, cook, housekeeper, etc. That leads to burn-out. So when we talk about marital duties we should include submission and the responsibility of a husband to see that he cares for her well-being in ways other than financial provision.

Gabriella
Your comment keeps the door open to this nebulous stuff about self esteem. Im sorry but the burden cannot be born by men, its fine to get a boost, to be made to feel good, but the foundations of worth are God given. Saying her mental and emotional health is a priority for him SHOULD mean he is doing no harm, and he is maintaining an atmosphere/environment in which SHE can maintain these.
“I dont feel safe” is mendacious

(a) “Your country” is a feminized police state run by a small number of fabulously wealthy women and their beta male enablers with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, ongoing occupations and war profiteering, and a total lack of respect for men except as devices for the wealthy to consume and dispose of. That you would fight and die for these ideals proves the strong strain of authoritarianism, and yes, fascism, you hold.

Talk about presenting the most negative possible view on submission. She will not present an image of what Godly submission looks like, how beautiful it is, or anything like that, because she is still rebelling just as she described on her mission trip when she was younger. Her understanding is shallow and her patience lacking.

I don’t know what I said that has anything to do with self-esteem? Your wife owes you submission. in turn..you owe her direction. If she needs to lose weight you get her a gym membership and watch the kids while she goes. If she is over-worked you tell her the top 5 housework duties that are the most important to you. If she is too much of a “people pleaser” and finds herself over-extended in volunteerism then you tell her to limit her volunteering to what is most managable and important. If she spends too much you give her a spending limit. If she doesn’t spend enough you give her some cash and tell her to get her nails done or buy a dress (if you like nails and dresses). If you think she is letting her brains go to waste you tell her to take a college class..if you feel she is prioritizing academic success above other things you direct her towards other pursuits.

She owes you obedience and you owe her the proper use of your authority towards her well-being.

It doesn’t mean you micromanage or that you get into her psyche and play Freud.

@Gabriella — You seem to be arguing that women should be free to arbitrarily withhold sex from their husbands… or else… that she should be able to force him to jump throw hoops to get it depending on how well she feels he’s attending to her priorities. You view sex as a carrot/stick training device rather than something expressly set apart for marriage. 1 Cor 7 expressly takes sex off the table as being something a couple gets to wrangle and negotiate over. Why do you exercise yourself so much looking for a pass for yourself on a very basic and clear direction in the scriptures…?

GabriellaIt is more typical for a wife to work in modern times than it is a wife to stay home.
Well, sure. How else are they to be able to afford to live in the style she’s accustomed to? How else can they keep up with the neighbors in new cars, plasma TV’s, trips to Maui, and all the things that make her haaaaapy?

Mentioning this is not saying that the husbands job is to make her happy, but we can’t say it is a one way street and expect that to seem fair.

Mentioning this is to say exactly that it is his job to make her haaaapy, because she refuses to ever be content with less than perfection. Besides, the ever-moving goal posts of her haaaapiness keep him in a state of perpetual failure, thus enabling her to forever find something wrong with him that simply must be fixed before she can ever feel secure enough to, you know, do that.

Women owe men sex and food and whatever else he wants and he owes her a paycheck.

No, no, no, women owe him nothing and he must do anything that makes her haaaapy, even if it is only for a moment, while she looks around to find some other glaring fault he needs to work on.

Fine, this paradigm works IF he has a paycheck or they are not splitting paycheck duties equally.

The paradigm of endless supplication, chasing forever receding goals, works well to keep a man in control. Now doesn’t it?

I would say that a woman owes her husband submission and a husband owes his wife help with priorities… priorities that keep her physical, mental, and emotional health in mind.

That would require him to set the priorities, and her to follow them. But we can’t have that, it would mean she was being controlled by him. So your solution, to have her set the priorities and him to meet them, even as she continually shifts and changes priorities without ever telling him, surely must be better. I mean, look around you, everyone else is doing it…

No man is asking for that. Really. Seriously. No man is asking for the perfect wife, mistress, mother, cook, housekeeper. We want one that is good enough at those things.
Consider this purely hypothetical situation: a woman works for money and honors & obeys her supervisor in the work place, loves and honors her children at home to the point that she is in “Mom” mode at all times in the house.

Question: To whom is she “married”?

I suggest it ain’t whats-his-name.

That leads to burn-out. So when we talk about marital duties we should include submission and the responsibility of a husband to see that he cares for her well-being in ways other than financial provision.

But of course, to properly care for her, he’d have to exert leadership. And that is the last thing that women want, a man to lead them, because he might lead them in a way that doesn’t make them haaapy all the time, or worse yet he might try to lead them somewhere they don’t want to go.

Much better if he just accepts his role as house doormat, does as he is told, keeps his mouth shut and obeys his mistress, lest she yank on his choke chain.

“What I meant by the was not men using violence to round up women and hold them captive, but that a terror of dangerous and feral men will encourage them to stay in relatively calm, patriarchal homes…homes with shotguns, and men to bear them.”

Yes, I did miss your meaning. I think we’re already seeing a somewhat less severe version of that dynamic in the brutality of the hookup culture and the poor economy. The solution is not to “turn back the clock” to a patriarchy largely understood by most people under-40 through the distorted lens of their feminist upbringing in any case. “Turning back the clock” is the ultimate horror because the American identity is so tied up in being in the vanguard of progress (this is why the Progressives call themselves that, when they’re often anything but).

Traditions are collections of changes that have proven themselves through the test of time. They are a good place to look for ideas when one is seeking new changes to add to the collection, and their track record of success means they should not be cast aside lightly, but make no mistake, the solutions that will emerge will be something new, not the return to something old, even if the new contains many elements of the old.

I didn’t say anything about withholding sex. I think it is wrong for either spouse to withhold sex. I am arguing that a mans obligations in marriage are not limited to financial provision.

She is to submit to his authority and he is to use his authority for her benefit. Not for her priorities because her priorities can be bad..in fact often a wife will prioritize according to how her friends do rather than what is best for her or her family.

You can’t limit a husbands obligation to finances ESPECIALLY in modern times when two-incomes are often necessary.

ybm, I’m afraid that you do not have the cultural perspective to really understand my comment about Boomers and THG. Boomers fancy themselves perpetually as 22 years old & rebelling against their stodgy old parents who just want to keep them from having fun and fixing the world. They look at THG and see themselves as the young men and women in the Game, not as the degenerates running that world. Shoving reality in their faces really upsets them because it overturns 40 years of fantasy.

The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time. You either have to prioritize your own wants and needs or you prioritize someone else’s. You can’t do both. This is why one of the responsibilities of headship is to make reasonable accommodations for the emotional and physical needs of those under your care. A good boss gives days off to his employees and health insurance. A good husband pays attention to possible problems and directs those under him towards the proper solutions.

I see, and I do love James Bond movies (I’ve driven the same model as the Aston Martin in Goldfinger, the silver one! I adored it). I do not blame boomers, my parents are baby boomers although not anglo ones. I merely use harsh language to identify that their generation does not truly understand my generation, and that the prosperity they (you) have lived in will never be achieved by humans again unless perpetual energy devices are invented.

The boomer reaction to it has been to try and squeeze as much productive capacity from the young as possible. This is in direct opposition to what the goal of the ‘man-blogs’ is, to give men the freedom to not work, not marry, not attain consumer goods. To simplY: Live for themselves.

if you’d like to expand the discourse please do so, all I ask is that when you identify an error of mine, you give me the correction in proof so I can expand my understanding.

Somewhere on a hill near a lake outside Ljubljana Slovenia, The Yugoslavian Nicolea Tesla stored some old notebooks which have notations that were made in the margins and were scratched over as evidenced by the imprint on the pages behind them.
If you ask the old man who lives in the cabin, he will allow you to see these notebooks, it will cost you only a bottle of single malt, pretty much any as he cannot be picky.
There is the schematic Teslas perpetual motion machine.
I intend to rule the world with it.
Or not.

On YBM:
If I remember correctly: YBM is a rich Italian man (childless, and unmarried) who is a proponent of the feminist-inspired Men’s Right’s Movement. He is socialist/Marxist in his politics and sociology.

@YBM

I love that at any point, at any time, an american will associate ‘anglo’ with only themselves.

Personally, I love that, at any point, an Italian can get onto the American invention called “The Internet”; which was made possible by the American government subjecting an infantile defense network to the rigors of the marketplace–specifically an American marketplace–where those market forces grew that little net into the giant web that has radically changed the world.

I love that such an Italian can go to a blog written by an American, hosted on American servers, and populated by well over 90% Americans, discussing the nature of sexual and marital relations, specifically as they apply and manifest in American culture.

I love that, such an Italian, can disparage Anglo culture; which is absolutely DOMINATED by a specifically American form of Anglo culture–so much so that you can only talk about another country’s influence (whether in or out of the Anglo world) in comparison to American culture; and that he is protected from reprisal in this age of fast, anonymous, information by the worldwide influence of American ideas about privacy and freedom; however badly upheld in recent administrations.

I don’t blame you for wanting to fuck hypothetical American wives. It’s only natural to want revenge for the alpha of the planet, America, having made a cuckold of not just Italy, but all of Europe, for what will probably end up being millenia.

That’s an awful lot of words to say I don’t like you, and Italy sucks. A very, very thin skin! It makes no difference to me your opinion on Italy, why must you care of my opinion of anglo to the point of this diatribe? Is it because there is truth in what I say? I will make no terrorist apologia, but when the world is seen with eyes such as yours in the anglo world, hatred of it is not so difficult to imagine.

@Gabriella — “The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time.”

The problem is that a Eve couldn’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time. And you are very much her daughter. This is the reason why you are unable to form a coherent response to the deeply spiritual concepts that are being discussed here. You just always have to have some wiggle room, don’t you?

(Seriously… I truly thought that women were spiritually and intellectually equal to men until women like you showed me just how limited your sex is when it comes to understanding direct New Testament commands.)

If I prioritize myself then when he wants breakfast I sleep in. If he wants sex and I don’t I say no. If your needs/wants conflict then I have to choose one and if I choose myself then he loses. But I don’t prioritize myself..I prioritize him… so I frequently reject my own wants to satisfy his. That’s submission.

All I am saying is that a man needs to give some care to his wife’s needs if he expects her to be submissive in EVERYTHING. He owe’s his wife more than financial provision. Not DEFERENCE, just care.

In 1926, Tesla commented on the ills of the social subservience of women and the struggle of women toward gender equality, indicated that humanity’s future would be run by “Queen Bees”. He believed that women would become the dominant sex in the future. – wikipedia

Reminds me of reading once that a woman tried heckling Winston Churchill at some speaking event. She said (approximately) ‘I’ll have you know Mr. Churchill, that in 50 years women will run the world!’. Churchill paused dramatically and then said ‘What! Still?’. LOL

Do you not get any joy from caring for your husband? Does not making him a nice breakfast before he goes out for the day, filling his stomach, make you happy? Sure, it’s nice to sleep in from time to time, but my goodness no one gets what they want all the time. If you don’t get to sleep in, isn’t there something else you can do for yourself to be happy? Prioritizing oneself constantly does not elicit happiness, it elicits selfishness and greed.

You are talking big picture..I am talking day-by-day and minute-by-minute. Generally you have to adopt an attitude of prioritizing one persons needs and in a submissive marriage that is the husband. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to make his breakfast”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.

Priority means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.

So if a man wants his wife to prioritize his needs over her own he must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if she is getting out of shape get her a gym membership or workout equipment or babysit while she goes for a run. If she never has a problem that needs his direction and intervention then thats great…its just unusual.

And re Boomers, being one of the final ones (born 62) I cop to mucking up gender and marriage and such, being the apogee generation for that particular flavor of dysfunction.

Watching the generations following staring at our present leader with wild eyed wonderment hanging on every syllable of Hope and Change, and overwhelmingly finding intellectual sufficiency (cough) in that to throw big numbers behind him, weeellll, lets say touche on who needed/needs to come to grips with reality.

@ Gabriella – women CAN be submissive and happy. You see, my submissive woman, because of the way she holds her position with me, she honors herself greatly.

I praise her in public circles. I give her things she asks for. I let her do her own thing- nay, I encourage it… because she always comes back and sets herself at my feet. It makes her beautiful, it makes her powerful, it elevates her to honor.

On the other hand, a rebellious woman would get only rejection and scorn from me.

The Curse of Eve, however, establishes that Eve now has two natures- one side is to be that harmonious helpmeet that God designed her to be, and one is a usurper, who strives to rule over her husband. This enduring inner conflict does result in some discord.

You either submit as God designed you, and contend with that inner urge to mutiny…. OR you go ahead with the mutiny and rebellion, and find yourself discontent because things aren’t right in that scenario.

The bible has called women to function in submission to a husband, even with the curse of Eve causing discord, and exhorts men and women to snuff out that rebellious element, both with great leadership and with rebuke. This same self-discipline is required of men, and we will damn sure require it of women.

I’m here to tell you that any person who gains self-mastery and self-discipline IS necessarily a “happy” or content person, because they have banished self-sabotage. Women who know that their men are helping them defeat their own self-sabotage, and then celebrate her successes in it are very happy women indeed. Women without such guidance or self-mastery are a damned wreck and you know it.

the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Titus 2: 3-5

The older women are to admonish/train the younger women because submission does not come naturally to them. A role of older women is to train younger women to be good wives, because without the training (or when the training becomes politically incorrect), well…how well have they been discreet, chaste, good homemakers, etc?

I don’t hate you or Italy. You’re projecting as a shield, and trying to parry me by falling back; which is stupid because this isn’t a sword fight. Don’t you know I’m a religious American gun-nut? That’s not a sword pointed your direction, but a bayonet.

Generally you have to adopt an attitude of taking responsibility over one persons needs and in a marriage where the man leads that is the wife. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to go to work today”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.

Responsibility means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.

So if a woman wants her husband to prioritize her needs over his own she must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if he is getting burned out from work she must insist that he take the night or the weekend off or babysit while he goes out for a night with the boys. If he never has a problem that needs her help and support then thats great…its just unusual.

My point is submission should be rewarded with MORE than financial provision, especially since financial provision is often a two-way street these days.

I agree that women should be aware of what is good for them and do it, but sometimes they are not and a good husband will recognize when they are not doing what is good for them. That is one of the responsibilities of headship.

The problem a wife can’t make herself happy AND be submissive at the same time.

You just said a mouthful. Your view of happiness is myopic. Gratifying the self leads to misery and discontent, even in the short term.

Putting someone else’s needs ahead of our own is more uplifting than that extra hour of sleep, unless you are truly exhausted. I get what you’re saying, but it doesn’t matter. Get your ideas right and things will fall into place better.

I recall making much the same suggestion as you in the comments to another story at a different site ~1 yr ago. Hamsterwheel power is our true key to energy independence. Quick, somebody call the Republitards!

The old family homestead is in the Colorado Springs area, where Tesla had his lightning lab for a while, so I’ve spent a lot of time there. There’s a street named after him, as well as an organization with a small science-y tribute museum always trying to raise funds.

To this day the place is still crawling w/Tesla kooks and conspiracy theorists, who think the AIr Force developed, and has in a secret hanger somewhere, a working version of the plans in those notebooks – basically phasers (like in Star Trek). There’s a Tesla coil some tinkerer has built in every other garage – and a magnetic flux capacitor in every pot. At the time I saw a highly advertised one, it was supposed to be the biggest (bug zapper) in the world not under government authority. Microamps of megavoltage. Very analogous to the content-free, so-called thinking produced by women.

Ok, what are you keeping score of exactly? How many times you decide you’ve identified an american stereotype then posted about it? Some form of ‘where’s wally’ for american stereotypes? stereotypes they may be, the gun issue is grounded in a high amount of truth, as is the misplaced machismo associated with it.

Misplaced machismo, does this mean it is now 3-0 or do you have to identify it to be given the points?

In the day-to-day and minute-to-minute a wife can feel very burdened by submission.

A man has his daily burdens too.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Cane- Are you suggesting I am impatient? If I seem impatient it is because when I comment here I often feel like I am on the phone with one of those Indian customer service reps who keep acting like they understand what you are saying but you actually said something completely different. Its like I am saying “I want X product” and they keep saying “No, No..we are out of B product” and then I insist one more time “Thats not the product I want. I want X product” and they get mad “Americans are so stupid, they can’t understand we are out of B product” and then I say OK..FUCK IT..You tell me what products you have and I’ll see if any of those match what I have in mind”.

Tesla’s Queen Bee Society: THERE are the vast, desexualized armies of workers whose sole aim and happiness in life is hard work. It is the perfection of communism, of socialized, cooperative life wherein all things, including the young, are the property and concern of all.

Whew! Glad we didn’t go there. Ok, he did say it would take centuries.

The Hunger Games. A trilogy that is now outselling Harry Potter books in the early teen demographic. A movie of the first book came out earlier this year. There is a scene that is clearly a tribute to Leni Reifenstahl’s most famous work. It is worth seeing, and if possible view it with someone of the target market age (13 – 17 or so).

And re Boomers, being one of the final ones (born 62) I cop to mucking up gender and marriage and such, being the apogee generation for that particular flavor of dysfunction.

Oh, no, Boomers are not the apogee in any way. They’re just stunningly clueless as a rule about two things

1. What exactly they have done
2. How others regard them for it.

Watching the generations following staring at our present leader with wild eyed wonderment hanging on every syllable of Hope and Change, and overwhelmingly finding intellectual sufficiency (cough) in that to throw big numbers behind him, weeellll, lets say touche on who needed/needs to come to grips with reality.

That’s your children you’re talking about. Maybe not genetically, but culturally. What they know, they learned from their mentors. For example, when Boomers defended BJ Clinton in regard to getting some Monica jobs at work, the younger people learned something about power…and the incidence of oral sex in high schools and junior highs went up just a bit, because the Presidential Seal of Approval had been stamped on it. In some ways, BJ typifies the leading edge of the Boom. Don’t take this personally, because i know some other men who were born the same year who have lived exactly oppositely to BJ Clinton, and they can’t stand him either. They are a minority, IMO.

So, Not All Boomers Are Like That (NABALT) if it helps. But my little anecdote above about THG has a lot of truth to it.

GabriellaGenerally you have to adopt an attitude of prioritizing one persons needs and in a submissive marriage that is the husband. In the minute when I am tired I am not thinking “its great to make his breakfast”..I’m thinking “I want sleep”.

And he may well be thinking “I don’t want to go to work, I want more sleep”. But he’s going to work anyway, and what’s more he won’t whine to you about it. You won’t even know he thought that.

Priority means when you have to choose you choose one over the other. Yes.. sometimes you don’t have to choose. Sometimes your own happiness and his are not mutually exclusive but SOMETIMES they are.

And on a regular basis, any married man is choosing the priorities of someone else over his. He just doesn’t go on and on and on about it to other people. Because that’s what he’s supposed to do, period.

So if a man wants his wife to prioritize his needs over her own he must take some care to recognize when there is a problem and to make reasonable effort to fix it. IE if she is getting out of shape get her a gym membership or workout equipment or babysit while she goes for a run. If she never has a problem that needs his direction and intervention then thats great…its just unusual.

In other words, it’s his job to make her haaaapy. No matter what it costs him. Because the haaapiness of women is the most important thing in the world.

@Gabriella – The problem as I see it here is that women want to make men responsible for their own well being when it comes to marriage. And that really isn’t possible. She needs to be the one that finds her own strength and her own faith in Christ (or in life, or whatever). She is the one that needs to be content with the situation she is in and not look to her husband to provide her self-esteem, joy, happiness, or whatever fits in that category. If she’s wearing big-girl panties, she needs to be taking care of herself in these areas and not looking to her husband to provide those things. Doing so is caustic both to the woman and the man she is with (why I broke up with my longest LTR, I saw she was doing this). Men want a real woman to wive, not a child in a woman’s body. Children are the ones that need cared for, entertained, and so on, along with being raised.

Now if there are out of the way financial needs associated with these things, it can be up to her to ask for those things. As well, he can both suggest and provide as head things as you indicated. But an adult is responsible for their own well being, according to Godly dictates. Single or married, man or woman. The problem I see is that women aren’t finding the nearest mirror when something goes wrong or when they become unhaaaaapy, but are looking to blame everyone else.

Gabriella: Just a tip: a big part of the ‘language barrier’ here is that you’re interjecting what men should do – stuff which you’re pretty unarguably correct about, mind you – into the context of a discussion about what many women aren’t doing. This always comes off as making excuses, even when it’s really not intended that way and there’s nothing in the statement itself to support it being interpreted that way – not just in this particular context, but any time there’s a discussion about what someone should or shouldn’t be doing.

I think Gabriella has a good point. What she is saying is that a husband should consider his wife’s true needs. I think this is exactly what a good husband does. All her true needs, including spiritual. This does not mean pandering to her.

CL, breakfast has become a political symbol of what feminists hate, of course.

My wife usually provides something simple, but she aways provides. But I think, if she were asked, she would see it as just routine.

Not everything is political.

I remember an episode of Firefly, I think, where they picked up a woman from a patriarchal planet. You could tell she was a space alien because she wanted to cook her man his breakfast. I think it is the feminist writer Joss Whedon who is really the alien.

Some women are chronically discontent so I don’t think all men can make their wives haaaapppy or whatever. I think men can take care of their wives though by correcting them if they are making some poor choices and help direct them towards good choices.

As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.

If he does not feel infatuated with me I want him to help me understand why and give me ideas on how to get that loving feeling back.

If he feels deeply and madly in-love with me then I will be happy. Though I do not mean to imply THAT BEING HAPPY IS REQUIRED for me to be a good and faithful wife. It is a pretty nice bonus though.

As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.

As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.</blockquote.

Quick note: I said above that this is what you were referring to, and you denied it by putting out a definition of romantic that wasn't about being in-love.

[Note: This comment is not a personal comment about Gabriella, but about the assumptions she shares with most American women]

As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.

IOW, marriage should be an eternal courtship. Love means the infatuation of the first stages of the relationship (which science has proved it can’t last). When the thrill is gone, divorce is justified because love is over. This is the mentality of the modern American woman. The mentality that has created such destruction in the American family:

“You know, honey. Your father and I are being divorced. The love is gone so we can’t go on. But the carpenter really gets me. His heart races when he is with me, unlike your father who is always tired. He is emotionally closed to me. I know you can’t be happy if I am not happy, can you? After all, you will still see your father once in a blue moon. And now you have a new daddy!!”

Too much fairy tales. The concept of marriage of the American woman is the same a fifteen-year-old girl has. Fortunately, in Europe and in Latin America, women mature.

ungerGabriella: Just a tip: a big part of the ‘language barrier’ here is that you’re interjecting what men should do – stuff which you’re pretty unarguably correct about, mind you – into the context of a discussion about what many women aren’t doing. This always comes off as making excuses, even when it’s really not intended that way and there’s nothing in the statement itself to support it being interpreted that way – not just in this particular context, but any time there’s a discussion about what someone should or shouldn’t be doing.

Unger, you may be confusing ignorance or error with the feminine imperative.
It’s not an accident that any discussion of what women do not do must, must be restructured as a discussion of what men must and should do. Just as fitness tests in a relationship are never an accident, even if they are not done consciously.

Dalrock, I have a topic for you, but it’s not going to be easy. Here’s the transcript of Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention. As you read this, bear in mind that she’s the wife of the heap-big patriarch, Mitt Romney. So when she praises single mothers, it’s worth noting. Sure, it’s just Party B pandering for some of the voters of Party A, not that it’s going to do much good. The point is, this address would surely meet with the approval of both Driscoll and Mohler, and this is the “social conservative” party that is supported by “traditional conservatives”. There’s a lot to read, if you are a drinking man you might want to be prepared in advance:

Here’s a sample:Sometimes I think that late at night, if we were all silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could hear a great collective sigh from the moms and dads across America who made it through another day, and know that they’ll make it through another one tomorrow. But in that end of the day moment, they just aren’t sure how.

And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It’s how it is, isn’t it?

It’s the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right.

It’s the moms of this nation—single, married, widowed—who really hold this country together. We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers, we’re the big sisters, we’re the little sisters, we’re the daughters.

You know it’s true, don’t you? You’re the ones who always have to do a little more.

No, that’s Germaine Greer, it’s Mrs. Romney.

Feminism. We are all soaking in it all the time, and if we aren’t actively rejecting it, we are passively accepting it.

GabriellaAs far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.

I shall quote myself from earlier in the day, with two corrections:

It’s long past time for women to Woman Up and deal with their insecurities privately, rather than dragging them all over the house, the front yard, down the street, and all across the entire Internet. Woman, you married him. He’s good enough for you. Live with it.

Gabriella – I see why you think that submission can sometimes be burdensome. I think that this is a problem that is best avoided when you are picking a spouse. If your major life goals, expectations, and lifestyle choices match then submission is probably easier. Most of what he wants will also be things that he wants.

I’m not sure what a husband is supposed to give his wife other than his protection and provision. Most women are capable of protecting and providing for themselves which is why men are seen more as accessories than as something necessary by so many. I think that submission might feel like less of a burden when you submit to someone that you are truly dependent on. In many marriages the husband isn’t doing anything for the wife that she can’t do for herself so he just becomes someone not adding much to her life and trying to boss her around.

What I need to be happy in a relationship is simply a side discussion. It has zero to do with what is OWED a wife.

Relationships have hills and valleys. I don’t advocate running out and divorcing during a valley.

I can live without happiness…I can be content with very little. Content =/= happiness.

Many of you are jumping to wild conclusions.

Its silly to act like my emotional needs are all kinds of shallow and stupid but the desire to have your phallus worshiped isn’t. If you don’t want the emotional needs of a man to be judged then why judge the emotional needs of a woman’s? If someone (not me) wants flowers and poetry is it really any different than wanting breakfast in bed and an hour long BJ?

We can agree that divorcing for unhappiness is wrong and a terrible thing to do. Judging what makes someone happy? That is actually amoral. I am not somehow wrong because certain things make me happy and other things don’t.

I have a genuine desire to know what you men believe a woman is owed from her husband..especially when financial responsibilities are shared. So far I have made some suggestions and when asked for others opinions I got basically nothing…it was implied that I am wrong or being manipulative by even suggesting the question.

Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. If not..say otherwise.. because that is probably the impression you are giving.

I have a genuine desire to know what you men believe a woman is owed from her husband..especially when financial responsibilities are shared.

I can only give my opinion. I know many people will disagree.

Are financially responsibilities EQUALLY shared? Are risks equally shared? (as in the husband having the same probability of being awarded custody, child support and alimony than the wife).

If this is so, I believe both spouses have the same rights and responsibilities. Complete equality. You have to remember I am from the “real equality” part of the MRM. (The other part is the “back to the patriarchy” one):

But what happens in reality is not this. 90% of husbands earn more than their wives. They do it by having more stressful jobs and working more. This is because women tend to marry a man who earns more (go figure). And risks are not equally shared. A woman does not have the same risk of losing her children and her assets because of divorce than a man.

Since the situation is not equal, the woman has to compensate by giving more to the relationship: in household chores, in sex, in being more nurturing.

Let me put an example of my own family in Europe. My cousin is married to a radical feminist, who is always saying he is a male chauvinist. My cousin has a very stressful job and he sleeps every day in a different city. He is tired, stressed and he says it. Meanwhile, his wife has a relaxing part-time job in the city they live. When my cousin goes home for the weekend, he makes half of the household chores. She justifies it saying that she believes in equality. But, when it comes to work, there is no equality.

I’m not sure why anyone would think that having a greater chance of paying alimony and and child support after the marriage makes them entitled to more from their wife during the marriage. Also not sure why who earns more should impact who does the chores.

How exactly is this “compensation” that the wife has to make calculated? If she earns 80% of what he earns does she do 20% more chores? And what if her job pays less but she works longer hours? How about if his job pays less but he works longer and harder. Say he’s a construction worker and she works in an air conditioned office?

I’m not sure why anyone would think that having a greater chance of paying alimony and and child support after the marriage makes them entitled to more from their wife during the marriage. Also not sure why who earns more should impact who does the chores.

Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you only want equality when it favors you, but not when it does not favor you. A typical point of view of American women (“Cafeteria feminism”).

Anonymous reader – I wasn’t referring to dialing 911, but if calling the police means that you can’t protect yourself then most men can’t either.

Call it feminist shaming if you want to, but it does seem as if some of you have a long list of things that you want from a spouse without offering much in return. You should be able to explain what value you add to the life of your spouse. If you can’t there’s a problem and there might be a reason that she is “unhaaapy” and sees you as unnecessary.

“Which is fine..but I think the zillion lurkers are probably curious too and many of them probably suspect you guys have high expectations of wives but low expectations of yourselves. If not..say otherwise.. because that is probably the impression you are giving.”

Not the case here, but I’m beginning to suspect that defending myself for the zillionth time from this sort of casual bigotry is not the wisest course of action. Denigrating men (again) will not get you closer to what you seek.

After decades of discussions about what a man owes his wife, if you haven’t formed an idea by now, that’s not what you’re really after. The reason this discussion has only gone one way is that it is an attempt to correct that imbalance. If the imbalance is of no concern to you, you’re in the wrong place.

Imnobody – I want to be treated fairly by government and my employer. For example I want to vote and own property, be paid and promoted fairly ect. That has nothing to do with how I expect to be treated in my relationships. A couple can set whatever terms they wan for their marriage. If a man can find a woman foolish enough to agree to “even though we both work, you do all the chores because if we divorce I might have to pay child support” then good for him.

Gabriella, I did attempt a reply above I think. Anyway, I wrote that a husband should consider his wife’s true needs.

My wife wanted another Samoyed dog. We went to Sydney yesterday to get her. This meant that my wife packed a picnic lunch, I took the car to the garage to get a minor problem fixed, and the following day, yesterday, I drove to Sydney from where we live. It was a round trip of about 360 miles. We don’t know Sydney well (it is a city of about 4 million people). I had to find my way into a particular suburb. For various reasons it was a real problem. Frankly, I was very nervous about having an accident. My wife became frightened and overwrought. I had to ignore her fear and feminine panic, pretend to a confidence I did not have, and by great good luck I found our way there.

I did this because I love my wife and want her to be happy. I was happy to do it because she is a good wife who does good things for me too.

In a cafe on the way home, I told her to get me another serviette. She told me to sod off, but got it anyway. That was my enjoying a little display of chauvinism.

Why do you suppose there are so many old women commenting on manosphere sites? Whatever reaction they fear from men (LOL these are American men we are talking about after all), have already escaped their generation. So what are they so scared of?! Now the younger women are the ones that will enter their 30s or will do so in a decade or so are the ones that might (big maybe still) actually be affected. They obviously aren’t commenting because life for a young woman is pretty good and they think the good times will last.

I find it truly pathetic that we can’t even keep a men only place even on the internet.

“…indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.”

“Soon, all the men are “kept in line” and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.”

I don’t have an idea what YOU guys think a husband owes his wife. I am fully aware what general society believes but that has nothing to do what you the commenters here believe.

I know the Scriptural answer to that question, but that answer (protection and provision) is something that is neither needed nor appreciated by women when they get them. In some ways, I have to think from what I read (both the Gregoireography and not) that you women really don’t have a need or desire for husbands at all, since the need or appreciation isn’t there for what a husband is legitimately owed a wife. However, there is much outside of that that women seem to expect and believe they are entitled to from their husbands, but have either no logical reason to expect at all, or is rare enough that they should be thankful for it to happen at all.

I hope nobody will object if an Australian passes on some comments by pundit Lawrence Auster on your Mrs Romney. He seems to mirror some of the objections to her behaviour that have been expressed here:

I fully agree that Ann Romney’s speech, which I watched and heckled and mocked throughout, was absolutely ludicrous and insulting. Pure naked pandering and an insult to women’s intelligence. Very revealing of the cynical way in which the GOP looks down on the average woman. But it won’t work. I predict the gender gap will remain, with the GOP continuing to have trouble with female voters.

The women who do vote Republican will do so because they believe in fiscal conservatism or because they are “values voters” who oppose gay rights and abortion rights, not because Ann Romney said, “Rah, rah, I love women.”

I basically agree with you that a wife who earns less because she works less hours and/or has a less stressful job should pick up the slack by taking on more at home in terms of child care and home care and personal tasks. I wouldn’t throw sex in there though because I think sex should be mutual, not just a transactional exchange, but I think that married people should make a good faith effort to please each other sexually.

This is why I have always believed that it is very important when choosing a husband to aim for economic equality or economic superiority, if you care about being competitive in the workplace and not feeling like a servant at home.

The earlier question remains. Aren’t women insulted/ashamed that this type of pandering, by both parties, works on them? They view women as simultaneously superwoman and helpless idiot. And women lap it up because it gives beta-worship with alpha-disqualification.

It bother me. I get political pamphlet’s in the mail all the time regarding “women’s issues”. Each time is pisses me off. These pamphlets are pure hamster food, though and the politics toward women obviously works. When the hamster is happy, the cognitive dissonance is easy to dismiss.

Interesting discussion with DH…
First of all, “sex = something wives give to husbands” isn’t just cultural, it’s in out biology. Women can get laid much easier than men but are less willing to jump at all these opportunities. Sex is indeed usually something that goes from woman to man, our sexuality is not alike.

Marrying a woman for sex (among other things!) is not an evil, misogynistic strategy at all. Sex is rather important, and going out every day to get it can be taxing. Having it with a gf can be ok, but marriage as it used to be ads more responsibility into the relationship. A man doesn’t marry a woman just for sex. Unless he’s dumb, he carefully chooses a wife for her loyalty, nice character and good attitude towards him. A wife isn’t really just a highly paid whore (although she can be, if she doesn’t care about her husband and only sleeps with him for the money).

When it comes to marriage as a contract, if she enters a contract where it says “I promise to give sex whenever he wants it and if he takes it, I promise not to call it a rape”, then calling it a rape shouldn’t result in a conviction. She signed up for it. Same goes for a guy who signed up for alimony and supporting her. Ideally, of course, a relationship shouldn’t be so transactional. But this isn’t a mere relationship, this is a marriage, with the added legal aspect. The legal aspect is there whether your relationship is wonderfully mutual or transactional. I feel the relationship itself and the legal contract shouldn’t be confused.

If a woman can find a man foolish enough to agree to “even though you work in a stressing feel and I work in a relaxing part-time job, we split the chores equally because I believe in equality” then good for her. She has found a chump and a slave.

If you are looking for men like this here, you are in the wrong forum. My cousin is one of these chumps but he is married. Sorry.

Equality is equality. Equality is doing the same amount of work regardless if this work is inside home or outside house. Equality is having the same probability of receiving custody, for example.

Women like Starviolet think equality means: “for the things women have it better, I want to keep things as they are, for the things men have it better, I want equality”.

Men have got along with this so-called “equality” for decades, but they are awakening and there is no turning back. You can’t stop the tide with shaming language and trying to word thing to hide the obvious.

You are so right. Women always want to enter to men’s spaces, instead of going to the spaces women have created. They pull it off by claiming discrimination. They have not left a space in society where men can speak between them without women’s interference.

They have to police the slaves, you know. They can’t left men having free thoughts. They could have ideas of freedom.

When women enter a men’s space, they often demand special treatment. Or they get offended by things men say. Or they derail the discussion with fallacies and shaming language. Or they bring the discussion to their private life (“All women are not this way because I have a husband, I give him blowjobs 5 times a day, I cook him better than a French chef, I keep my house tidy an neat like the one in Desperate Housewives, I am a tigress in the bed and a lady in the street, I praise him before his colleagues and I am the perfect wife, lover and mother”). Good luck to disprove that (the husband never gets to say his opinion).

Very soon, the quality of the discussion drops dramatically. What once was a discussion about general societal trends, it is now a discussion about the “lady”, her opinions and her life. What once was a discussion about abstract arguments is now a chat with shaming language, fallacies, ad-hominem attacks, anecdote. What was a discussion that proceeded linearly is now a circular discusion of this kind:

Lady: Says feminist idea I (which has been disproved once and again by science and by the manosphere).
Other people: Says argument A which disproves I (argument that we all know so it doesn’t add anything to the discussion).
Lady: Distorts argument A in order to attack it (strawman fallacy). Repeats idea I
Other people: Point out the distortion of the argument A.
Lady: Ignores argument A. Repeats idea I.
Other people: Present argument B, C, D against idea I.
Lady: Distorts the arguments she can, ignore others and tell that idea I is true in her life because “my husband and I…
Other people: Try to argue logically with lady.
Lady: Does not concede any point, does not agree with any argument she does not want to agree, uses veiled shaming language, etc. Repeats and repeats idea I

At the end of the day, after much back and forth, nothing has been achieved. Idea I is completely disproved in the manosphere. Arguments A, B, C, D are known. The “lady” has not changed her mind but it has managed to get the discussion to become about her and to stop people have the meaningful discussion they would have had if she hasn’t appeared.

Imnobody – I don’t think that equality as required by the government and employers should necessarily extend to marriage. I don’t expect my husband to be carefully calculating my work and his work to make sure that we both contribute exactly the same amount. That attitude is more competitive than cooperative. In a marriage there is a lot of give and take and sometimes one person will be working harder than the other. When both people try to treat each other fairly (fair and equal are not always the same) then it will generally balance out. I also don’t see how a man can expect to lead and have his leadership respected when is so focused on making sure that he doesn’t do more work than his wife.

StarvioletImnobody – I don’t think that equality as required by the government and employers should necessarily extend to marriage. I don’t expect my husband to be carefully calculating my work and his work to make sure that we both contribute exactly the same amount.

But that brings up the reverse question: do you reserve to yourself the privilege of carefully calculating his work and your work in order to make sure he’s contributing “enough”, for your definition of “enough”?

And this is an actual husband; you are married or have been married, correct?

Parentheticaly, the equality mandated by government in employee situations has been extended to marriage in some important ways already. I doubt you object to any of them, frankly.

Starviolet again:I also don’t see how a man can expect to lead and have his leadership respected when is so focused on making sure that he doesn’t do more work than his wife.

It’s more troubling that that. Gabriella has heard the best of the best Christian arguments on these issues. She teaches her daughters to not be slutty. She believes the bible. She is not an obvious troll like some I won’t name. She has some level of integrity and confidence, though maybe not quite as doctrinally sound as one of the other women that post here.

And yet… lay 1 Cor 7 on the table and her brain seems to shut down. She suddenly starts talking about happiness… she starts sounding like she’d keep constant score on who’s done what in her relationships and whether or not her husband has qualified for sex at any given point. Then she goes into full teacher/moralizer/prophet mode rebuking us for not spelling out what husbands can actually give their wives. (Oh yeah… like women need men. Hrumph!) If she works full time just like him… ha! Why on earth should she sex him up? Why?! I can’t think of any reasons…. Can you…? I mean seriously. What has a man done for any woman *lately*?

This is no different than the line of thinking that my wife uses who is self-confessed feminist and in open rebellion. (And Gabriella seemed like such a nice girl….) I’m not sure how to respond to this. It’s not just Gabriella. More respectable/thoughtful/spiritual women than her have this same chain reaction in their heads that goes off whenever the feminine psych game is challenged. It makes me think… there is no middle ground. You can’t make peace with this. You can never relax or be friends or be equals with a person like this. You either avoid them or dominate them. There’s no other option.

“I fully agree that Ann Romney’s speech, which I watched and heckled and mocked throughout, was absolutely ludicrous and insulting. Pure naked pandering and an insult to women’s intelligence. Very revealing of the cynical way in which the GOP looks down on the average woman. But it won’t work. I predict the gender gap will remain, with the GOP continuing to have trouble with female voters.

The women who do vote Republican will do so because they believe in fiscal conservatism or because they are “values voters” who oppose gay rights and abortion rights, not because Ann Romney said, “Rah, rah, I love women.””

One of the (good) reasons people try to transcend hatred is that it really gets in the way of self-awareness/character development if overindulged. Problems are blamed on others while one’s own soul rots from neglect, causing one to need greater and greater hatred hits to get the same “high”.

I’m using third person here to avoid the defense mechanisms/counterattacks that second person would trigger, or the reflexive revulsion that would result from first, but all three persons are guilty of, and suffer from, this behavior. It is a dis-grace.

You can’t make peace with this. You can never relax or be friends or be equals with a person like this. You either avoid them or dominate them. There’s no other option. It’s very disillusioning.

Yes, it is very disillusioning but it is true, sign of our decadent times. Christian American women have similar ideas to feminist ones. They only twist the Scripture to make the texts say what they want to say. It is the ultimate Christian Rationalization Hamster. They can use 1 Cor 7 to justify that it’s the man who has to submit to the woman (although they will be careful not to word it this way).

Except she doesn’t. She teaches them in such a way that she doesn’t have to confront her own slutty past properly (i.e. you can’t erase the damage done as with a money debt, as she believes) and thus doesn’t really teach them as well as she might.

She won’t quite swallow the red pill, as it were, because then she would have to look at herself in a harsher light than she wants to. She is trying to have it both ways, also known as eating her cake and having it too.

I’m really at a loss as to why this apparently gets a pass around here, and why Gabriella is allowed to blather on about herself all day, waffling and back-pedalling and bringing down the conversation. Everywhere she goes the thread derails into an endless wank-fest about her issues.

Anonymous Reader – No, I don’t carefully calculate whether or not my husband ( yes I’m married) is contributing “enough” either. But then his contributions and value would be obvious to a blind man.

I don’t object to assets being split down the middle during a divorce if that is what you were referring to.

I personally would find it hard to respect a leader who was all about making sure that he wasn’t working too hard and expecting his wife to “compensate” him for laws that are outside of her control, but you can call it a cute straw an if you want.

I personally would find it hard to respect a leader who was all about making sure that he wasn’t working too hard and expecting his wife to “compensate” him for laws that are outside of her control, but you can call it a cute straw an if you want.

The key words here are “all about”. So how many guys do you know are all about keeping the ledger level? I do think most guys have more balanced personalities than that.

Looks like 2 days of dialog with the ladies accomplishes nothing as is what to be expected. The end of feminism will not involve the enlightment or “changing of heart” of the woman.
I have said before women do not have the capacity to love but they do gina tingle and it is love to them and this comment is what it looks like in practice.
As far as emotional need- I just want my husband to be in-love with me. Not love me in the action verb sense (though that is nice)..but to actually feel infatuated with me. I want his heart to still race sometimes when he is with me. I want his eyes to light up when he talks about me to his friends. I want him to ENJOY my company.

If he does not feel infatuated with me I want him to help me understand why and give me ideas on how to get that loving feeling back.

If he feels deeply and madly in-love with me then I will be happy. Though I do not mean to imply THAT BEING HAPPY IS REQUIRED for me to be a good and faithful wife. It is a pretty nice bonus though.
You cannot argue or debate with that. A man has got to understand there is no debate (game anyone). The solution is right front of us and is against all conventioanal wisdom making it invisible to anyone that cannot understand the nature of women.